Reisinger BAM Boston 2008

[Lobowolf]

I dunno...might hurt the turnout in the restricted events.

Some people don't think that would be a bad thing.

 

I would be just as happy to see women's events eliminated, and senior events have a higher age threshhold and not 'count' as national titles. I also wouldn't mind adding junior events and of course also not counting those as national titles. Restricting by age but not by gender (or anything else) seems appropriate to me.

I agree; I was actually being facetious.

[jdonn]

I dunno...might hurt the turnout in the restricted events.

Some people don't think that would be a bad thing.

 

I would be just as happy to see women's events eliminated, and senior events have a higher age threshhold and not 'count' as national titles. I also wouldn't mind adding junior events and of course also not counting those as national titles. Restricting by age but not by gender (or anything else) seems appropriate to me.

I agree; I was actually being facetious.

In fairness to your facetiousosity abilities, I can see that now.

[qwery_hi]

I dunno...might hurt the turnout in the restricted events.

Some people don't think that would be a bad thing.

 

I would be just as happy to see women's events eliminated, and senior events have a higher age threshhold and not 'count' as national titles. I also wouldn't mind adding junior events and of course also not counting those as national titles. Restricting by age but not by gender (or anything else) seems appropriate to me.

Imagine the protests if there was a men only national level event in the ACBL. I don't understand why there still are women only national level events. One good reason could be that women are underrepresented in the ACBL, and to encourage more women to take up bridge events could be made women-only. I'm don't know if this is the case though.

[blackshoe]

I don't know, but I suspect it was originally a reaction to the "unfairness" of men-only events in a time when there were no women-only events, and that no one has actually thought about whether it should continue that way.

 

My personal opinion is that there is no good reason to treat the sexes differently in bridge, and every reason not to treat them differently, and therefore there is no good reason to have "Men's Pairs" or "Women's Pairs" or "Mixed Pairs" events (or similar team or individual events) - all events should be open to all players, as far as their sex is concerned. I would not buy the argument that the purpose of "women only" events would be to encourage more women to play.

[TimG]

Imagine the protests if there was a men only national level event in the ACBL. I don't understand why there still are women only national level events. One good reason could be that women are underrepresented in the ACBL, and to encourage more women to take up bridge events could be made women-only. I'm don't know if this is the case though.

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members.

 

I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events?

[Lobowolf]

Imagine the protests if there was a men only national level event in the ACBL. I don't understand why there still are women only national level events. One good reason could be that women are underrepresented in the ACBL, and to encourage more women to take up bridge events could be made women-only. I'm don't know if this is the case though.

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members.

 

I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events?

I imagine it does the same "harm" that was done by the men-only events that were eliminated as a consequence of the anti-discrimination suit some 20-25 years ago. AFAIK, nobody has filed a similar lawsuit aimed at women-only events, so the ACBL continues to discriminate by offering those events...ironically taken advantage of by, among others, one of the plaintiffs.

[awm]

Women are underrepresented in the national open events. It is relatively unusual for a woman (or even more unusual for a pair of two women) to win an open event. This is not just because of simultaneous women-only events; consider events like the Reisinger or Vanderbilt or Blue Ribbon Pairs or the summer Life Master Pairs none of which have simultaneous women-only events.

 

Yes there are a few high-profile examples (Jill Meyers won the LM pairs recently, Jenny Wolpert won the Blue Ribbons) but these are the exceptions rather than the rule (and they were playing with male partners too).

 

Many arguments can be put forward for why this is the case, but as long as it is true it makes sense to have the gender-restricted events to encourage top female players to compete and increase the professional opportunities for the top women (who may eventually develop into top-flight open players). This also has advertising benefits.

 

There does seem to be a problem with the senior events, in that there are many players in the "lower end" of the seniors age range who are still quite competitive in the open field. It is not unusual to see people in their sixties on contending teams in the Vanderbilt/Spingold/Bermuda Bowl. If the senior age were raised somewhat then the situation would be more reasonable.

[Lobowolf]

Women are underrepresented in the national open events. It is relatively unusual for a woman (or even more unusual for a pair of two women) to win an open event. This is not just because of simultaneous women-only events; consider events like the Reisinger or Vanderbilt or Blue Ribbon Pairs or the summer Life Master Pairs none of which have simultaneous women-only events.

 

Yes there are a few high-profile examples (Jill Meyers won the LM pairs recently, Jenny Wolpert won the Blue Ribbons) but these are the exceptions rather than the rule (and they were playing with male partners too).

 

Many arguments can be put forward for why this is the case, but as long as it is true it makes sense to have the gender-restricted events to encourage top female players to compete and increase the professional opportunities for the top women (who may eventually develop into top-flight open players). This also has advertising benefits.

 

There does seem to be a problem with the senior events, in that there are many players in the "lower end" of the seniors age range who are still quite competitive in the open field. It is not unusual to see people in their sixties on contending teams in the Vanderbilt/Spingold/Bermuda Bowl. If the senior age were raised somewhat then the situation would be more reasonable.

I don't see any meaningful difference between this analysis, and analysis that would support racially restrictive events aimed at underrepresented groups in the finals of championship events (though perhaps people wouldn't find those objectionable, either). Barring some clear evidence supporting inequality of opportunity for competing on a level playing field, I don't accept that mere inequality of results justifies offering opportunities for one gender at the exclusion of the other. Bring back the men's events, or get rid of the women's.

[TimG]

Imagine the protests if there was a men only national level event in the ACBL. I don't understand why there still are women only national level events. One good reason could be that women are underrepresented in the ACBL, and to encourage more women to take up bridge events could be made women-only. I'm don't know if this is the case though.

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members.

 

I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events?

I imagine it does the same "harm" that was done by the men-only events that were eliminated as a consequence of the anti-discrimination suit some 20-25 years ago. AFAIK, nobody has filed a similar lawsuit aimed at women-only events, so the ACBL continues to discriminate by offering those events...ironically taken advantage of by, among others, one of the plaintiffs.

There are Open events opposite all of the Women's event, I believe. Both men and women can enter the "real" event. When the lawsuit was brought, there were Men's events opposite the Women's events, so that a male-female partnership had no event to enter (and women could not enter the "real" event).

 

Upon what basis would a man file suit against the ACBL regarding the Women-only events?

 

Now, if there is a Mixed event with no Open event concurrent, that would seem a basis for a lawsuit. But, the BOD would not be silly enough to even propose such a situation.

[Lobowolf]

Imagine the protests if there was a men only national level event in the ACBL. I don't understand why there still are women only national level events. One good reason could be that women are underrepresented in the ACBL, and to encourage more women to take up bridge events could be made women-only. I'm don't know if this is the case though.

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members.

 

I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events?

I imagine it does the same "harm" that was done by the men-only events that were eliminated as a consequence of the anti-discrimination suit some 20-25 years ago. AFAIK, nobody has filed a similar lawsuit aimed at women-only events, so the ACBL continues to discriminate by offering those events...ironically taken advantage of by, among others, one of the plaintiffs.

There are Open events opposite all of the Women's event, I believe. Both men and women can enter the "real" event. When the lawsuit was brought, there were Men's events opposite the Women's events, so that a male-female partnership had no event to enter (and women could not enter the "real" event).

 

Upon what basis would a man file suit against the ACBL regarding the Women-only events?

 

Now, if there is a Mixed event with no Open event concurrent, that would seem a basis for a lawsuit. But, the BOD would not be silly enough to even propose such a situation.

I don't imagine it would be too hard to construe; for instance, to the extent that there's a bridge pro livelihood issue, female professionals can bypass the "real" event for easier masterpoints in the restricted event (clients love masterpoints). Or it could be argued that a male bridge pro who hasn't been able to win a National event in the Men's or Open fields (thus unable to become a Grand Life Master, among other things), while a female pro has an easier route. Or on the more general premise that the ACBL offers its "currency" to women in every event held at a National, while men are denied an equal opportunity by being excluded from some events.

[blackshoe]

Upon what basis would a man file suit against the ACBL regarding the Women-only events?

 

Now, if there is a Mixed event with no Open event concurrent, that would seem a basis for a lawsuit.  But, the BOD would not be silly enough to even propose such a situation.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me the legal basis of a man's suit against the ACBL for this kind of thing would not be that there was no other event available for him to enter, but rather that he is prohibited, on the basis of sex, from entering the Women's event. In that case, it is the existence of the restriction on the basis of sex in the event in question that is discriminatory, and the existence or non-existence of alternative events not so restricted is irrelevant.

[Lobowolf]

It was relevant to the original lawsuit, that alleged a Civil Rights violation (!!) in that a husband and wife couldn't play every day, every time slot together (as I recall).

[TimG]

Upon what basis would a man file suit against the ACBL regarding the Women-only events?

 

Now, if there is a Mixed event with no Open event concurrent, that would seem a basis for a lawsuit.  But, the BOD would not be silly enough to even propose such a situation.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me the legal basis of a man's suit against the ACBL for this kind of thing would not be that there was no other event available for him to enter, but rather that he is prohibited, on the basis of sex, from entering the Women's event. In that case, it is the existence of the restriction on the basis of sex in the event in question that is discriminatory, and the existence or non-existence of alternative events not so restricted is irrelevant.

I'm not an attorney, but consider the example of restrooms. If a men's room and a women's room are provided, the men and women have no right to demand access to the opposite sex restroom. But, if only a women's restroom were available, men could then demand access.

[qwery_hi]

Upon what basis would a man file suit against the ACBL regarding the Women-only events?

 

Now, if there is a Mixed event with no Open event concurrent, that would seem a basis for a lawsuit.  But, the BOD would not be silly enough to even propose such a situation.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me the legal basis of a man's suit against the ACBL for this kind of thing would not be that there was no other event available for him to enter, but rather that he is prohibited, on the basis of sex, from entering the Women's event. In that case, it is the existence of the restriction on the basis of sex in the event in question that is discriminatory, and the existence or non-existence of alternative events not so restricted is irrelevant.

I'm not an attorney, but consider the example of restrooms. If a men's room and a women's room are provided, the men and women have no right to demand access to the opposite sex restroom. But, if only a women's restroom were available, men could then demand access.

Using this analogy, there are three kinds of restrooms now -

 

1. women only

2. couples-only (no single men or women)

3. open to all

 

of course, single folks could pair up and enter restroom 2 if they so desire.

[Vilgan]

As much as I dislike the women's events and am amazed at some of the people who are "national champions", isn't it fairly accepted at this point that there are biological differences between men and women that makes bridge easier for men?

 

The most observable difference is the female multitask vs the male single task. Men do not multitask well... hence why many of us get "you aren't listening to me!!" comments. Women can do multiple things at once AND listen and don't get why we can't (or that's my excuse for my girlfriend anyway). On the flipside, we are more able to focus and single task better than women. From what I understand, it goes back to the whole... men hunt, women protect the kids and be aware of all threats at once type thing.

 

There are some other differences, like women tend to pick up and track things better peripherally which can be a distraction as well. One tournament there was a fight that involved the table next to us being thrown across the room that I was not even aware of...

 

I still dislike restricted events giving a national title, but I don't think its an accident that there are so few all female partnerships that really do well together at the top levels. Cecilia/Sara and Sabine/Danielle are the only 2 partnerships that pop into my head as contenders at that level.

[mycroft]

My opinion on Women's events at NABCs is easily searched for here. Women's events at regionals is another thing entirely, but if women with > 1500 MPs want to play in the lower flight of a stratiflighted event, I'm happy for them</sarcasm>.

 

It is interesting to note, however, that while the Wagar, say, is easier to *win* than the Spingold, it's probably harder for the rank and file to get anywhere in it (although the siphoning off of a lot of teams into the Restricted Spingolds, and the presence of 10 team-equivalents of non-North American professionals has changed that, too). There may only be 18 teams entering the Wagar, but they all have pretensions of winning it, in a way that every team from say seed 40 down in the Spingold doesn't (they'll play to win, of course, but they don't think there's a chance - they're effectively playing for a Top 16, or for the really low seeds, a scratch). Which is evidence for my belief that entry into NABC Women's events is primarily, if not only, for the seeding points they give for the USWBC trials.

 

I will admit that the GrLM candidates that get in solely on restricted NABC titles rankle a bit, be it the Women's Pairs or the Senior Swiss (or, to be fair, I guess, the Canadian Team Trial, which is my best chance, such as it is). Sour grapes, it is, I'm sure - as I'm going to be one of the 90-ish seeds at the Spingold, and will likely so remain ever, and with good reason.

 

From the results in Boston and otherwise, however, I wouldn't count out Wortel/Michielson in open events any time soon...