Why bother playing in the Reisinger ?

[sathyab]

Having just read all the discussion by awards of master points in on-line games and Robot tournaments, I thought I'd vent my own a bit.

 

When I was riding the Trolley in San Diego from the Petco parking lot toward the end of the tournament, I ran into an acquaintance from the Bay Area who was absolutely thrilled that she had won a lot of Platinum points in Women's BAM. At first I didn't even recognize what the event was. I knew there was a Women's Pairs event that runs concurrently with the Open LM pairs event, but didn't know there was also a Women's BAM concurrent with the Open BAM. I looked her up in the on-line recaps and discovered that each of her team members had won 25 Platinum Points for finishing 13th in the event, with a score of 25 on an average of 27 ! ! (If you had 25 on an average of 26 in the Reisinger it'll probably cost you a dime more to make a phone call from a pay-phone)

 

There are a lot of teams that enter the Reisinger, knowing that the odds are against their making it to the second day, let alone the finals. They figure that if they all play their best and have some luck they might make it to the semi-finals of what's probably the toughest event in NABC. Any team that misses qualifying for the next day by a narrow margin could most likely qualify easily in the North American Swiss and have a shot at making it to the finals probably. You get very little if you merely make it to the second day of Reisinger, probably a fraction of a Platinum point, if at all. I always used to think that Platinum points meant something, but in the light of what I have recently learnt, there're Platinum Points and there're Platinum Points just like any other kind. Sigh.

[TimG]

I think you've answered your own questions, sort of: not for the masterpoints.

[awm]

I get the feeling ACBL is actually trying to discourage people from playing in the Reisinger unless they have a serious chance of winning it. Some reasons/evidence for this:

 

(1) They like to get down to one section the last day to balance the field, and this would be difficult to do if the initial field were huge.

 

(2) They have scheduled the swiss to start the same day, whereas holding a two-day swiss starting on day two of the reisinger would be make the swiss a stronger event and encourage people to enter the reisinger with the swiss as "consolation" if they lose early.

[sathyab]

I think you've answered your own questions, sort of: not for the masterpoints.

Not really. You have answered my question, not sort of, but definitively :) I have always thought the master point award for an event should reflect the degree of difficulty. But you're suggesting that some events like Reisinger are beyond master points, that virtue has to be its own reward.

[barmar]

The masterpoints for winning events somewhat reflects the degree of difficulty, but that becomes less true as you go further down in the standings.

 

Most of the players that make it to the finals of the Reisinger already have thousands of masterpoints, so they're not really playing bridge for the masterpoints any more. They just want to win or place in major events, and the masterpoints are a nice record of this. But I doubt they select events to play in based on the number of masterpoints they pay. That would be like Bill Gates choosing what to eat based on what's on sale at the supermarket.

[maggieb]

The masterpoints for winning events somewhat reflects the degree of difficulty, but that becomes less true as you go further down in the standings.

 

Most of the players that make it to the finals of the Reisinger already have thousands of masterpoints, so they're not really playing bridge for the masterpoints any more.  They just want to win or place in major events, and the masterpoints are a nice record of this.  But I doubt they select events to play in based on the number of masterpoints they pay.  That would be like Bill Gates choosing what to eat based on what's on sale at the supermarket.

I think it's hard to explain how fun it is to play the second/third day of the Reisinger, or the third day of the Spingold/Vanderbilt, or the third day of a couple national events, to someone who's never done it. It isn't about masterpoints at all. Basically even bracket 1 at tough regionals (maybe Gatlinburg and a few others are exceptions) don't really compare to the level of competition that you can get in the late stages of a national event. For many people, nationals are one of the only times of the year that they can expect to play top quality bridge. I would rather get destroyed by a top-8 seed in the Spingold than win a random A/X swiss or bracket 1 KO, because in the first case it is almost certain that you will learn a lot about bridge, which is what playing is really all about anyway.

[sathyab]

The masterpoints for winning events somewhat reflects the degree of difficulty, but that becomes less true as you go further down in the standings.

 

Most of the players that make it to the finals of the Reisinger already have thousands of masterpoints, so they're not really playing bridge for the masterpoints any more.  They just want to win or place in major events, and the masterpoints are a nice record of this.  But I doubt they select events to play in based on the number of masterpoints they pay.  That would be like Bill Gates choosing what to eat based on what's on sale at the supermarket.

As I noted myself, a lot of players who play in the Reisinger do so knowing that they'd have a much easier time playing in the North American Swiss. So of course it's their choice to play in a tougher event.

 

I see a fundamental inconsistency in arguing that playing in tough Nationals events is a reward in itself and awarding a ton of Platinum points for a 13th finish in Women's BAM. The fact is that Platinum Points count in you seeding at events like Vanderbilt or Spingold presumably (?) It definitely affects your eligibility for Platinum Pairs in Spring Nationals (I have enough PP to qualify, so that's not the motivation here),

 

Other category of master points have long been rendered meaningless given the ease with which you can amass them in Bracketed KO games in regionals. When they came up with the idea of Platinum Points I was hopeful that, it'd be one category of points that would mean something.

 

Competing in Open events must mean something special. If you must award Platinum Points for 13th finish in Women's BAM can't you come up with something different for Reisinger, say Weapons Grade Uranium ? May be just 0.86 Points, but WGU all the same :P

[Vilgan]

Its not that the Reisinger is omg terrible (although it might be... not an event to play for plat though), its that female only events get so few entries that the payouts are pretty ridiculously high.

 

13th out of 36 total (18 in the finals). So not even in the top 3rd was 24.44 plat.

 

I was 13th in the fast pairs in vegas out of 306 initial entries (156 in the finals). That paid LESS, 22.22 to be exact.

 

The Reisinger isn't great for plat... Swiss is a lot better I believe, especially given the competition. But I doubt you'll find ANY open event that paid 25 plat to someone who didn't even place in the top 3rd of the initial field. The equivalent placing in the open Bam in San Diego - 44th (13/36 * 122 initial) did not even make the overalls whatsoever.

 

Edit> Interesting thing I noticed. Going back and looking at previous Women's BAM events, the payout recently has been the same regardless of tables. For example in Boston, based on 33 tables the payout was the exact same except 1 spot was eliminated. 12th was worth 25.88 in both. However going back further in time to Hawaii, it was a lot less.. only 82.5 for first and 22.00 for 10th, while the open event has always been 140. Not sure what to make of it really, just seemed like an odd difference.

[Elianna]

The payout recently has been the same regardless of tables.

That's true of all national events, plus GNT district finals. The payout is decided ahead of time, before the event, and is not based on the number of tables.

[Vilgan]

The payout recently has been the same regardless of tables.

That's true of all national events, plus GNT district finals. The payout is decided ahead of time, before the event, and is not based on the number of tables.

Yes. My confusion wasn't that it was the same so much as that it was not the same as a few years before in the Hawaii NABC.

[nickf]

How many master points I may or may not win has never remotely been a part of my motivation for playing any bridge event. I play to win, I play to play with people I like, I play to learn, I play to beat better players, I play to smash worse players. But I never ever play so I can win masterpoints.

 

nickf

sydney

[Mbodell]

I think the problem is the most prestigious pigmented points ought to be reserved for only events anyone can play in (or events restricted by skill only in qualifying like the top segment of GNT/NAP/platinum pairs). That means only open events (and maybe mixed). But women's, senior's, junior's, and limited events ought not have those payouts be in the top pigment. At least if you want those payouts to be super rare and meaningful. You also probably shouldn't have match awards, and arguably shouldn't have session awards in this format either (which would strip me of my few platinum points). Just overalls.

 

The reality is master points are imperfect. And while platinum points are less imperfect than gold points or overall points, they are still not perfect. So be it.

[mrdct]

How many master points I may or may not win has never remotely been a part of my motivation for playing any bridge event. I play to win, I play to play with people I like, I play to learn, I play to beat better players, I play to smash worse players. But I never ever play so I can win masterpoints.

 

nickf

sydney

It's a bit different in Australia Nick where we don't have any events which are restricted to people with a minimum number of masterpoints.

 

I've never played in a NABC, but from looking at the bulletins and programmes they appear to be dominated by flighted events which is obviously a popular format given the number of tables they have in play. Restricting the "premium" events to the deep end of the talent pool is probably better for the development of the top players who get to spend more time playing in a higher standard field. It also makes good sense for the ACBL to incentivise people to accumulate masterpoints to gain entry to the premium events for obvious revenue reasons.

 

Contrast the NABC format to our own Summer Festival of Bridge where for the premier teams event, which is open to all-comers and is the only event on from Monday to Friday of the second week, you have the noobs and the experts all in one field such that even the top teams will probably play at least six matches (two full days of bridge) against monumentally weaker opponents which probably isn't the best use of their time.

[Mbodell]

I've never played in a NABC, but from looking at the bulletins and programmes they appear to be dominated by flighted events which is obviously a popular format given the number of tables they have in play.  Restricting the "premium" events to the deep end of the talent pool is probably better for the development of the top players who get to spend more time playing in a higher standard field.  It also makes good sense for the ACBL to incentivise people to accumulate masterpoints to gain entry to the premium events for obvious revenue reasons.

This actually usually isn't true at the NABC level. The platinum pairs will be the only event that is an NABC+ event that requires a minimum of platinum points, and the only other NABC+ events with minimums are the various life master events (and the ribbon events, although the ribbon events don't have a direct qualification in points since one can earn a ribbon through playing and doing well in a single event even if it is your first ever).

 

The flighted events, are usually, open to anyone to play in the top flight. True, many players don't opt to take advantage of that. But many players do. Even when the NABC offer a limited version of the same event (0-1500 Spingold, 0-5000 Spingold, Spingold) there can be players who could play in any of the 3 events that choose to play in the highest event.

 

The A/X pairs and swiss and other events always allow people who are eligible for B/C/D to play up.

 

The bracketed KO are a place that is a little more restricted. Sometimes you can opt to play in the top bracket even if you don't have the points, sometimes you can't. But this is more a problem at regional events then at NABC events.

 

It is true that at the NABC there are always many simultaneous events going on (essentially a huge regional run along side the NABC/NABC+ events as well as a huge 299er[non-life master] tournament) and that the LOLs will be able to play the 299er or regional events to their hearts content. I know some people who go to the nationals and do nothing but play the regional KO events.

[Jlall]

Agree, not a politically correct opinion probably but I think it is absurd that womens events get platinum points. I think it absolutely tarnishes the few masterpoint races that should be meaningful like player of the decade and player of the year, ie the races that involve platinum points only.

 

Sorry, but it is a joke for a player who almost always plays womens or mixed events when they are available (almost always) is ranked ahead of someone with the successes of say, Claudio Nunes, in player of the decade. It makes me not take the lower rankings of that race seriously (and if somehow someone dominated the womens scene to the level of WINNING player of the decade, how do you think the bridge world would react?).

 

I do not mean to denigrate the achievements that these women have had, I would strongly advocate giving womens points a seperate color and would definitely watch the Women's Player of The Year race, and the Women's Player of the Decade list. The fact that these races do not exist is also terrible. In my view, there could be a seperate color for mixed events, womens events, and open events. All of these would count towards Women's Player of the Year.

 

Additionally, women would continue to be ranked on the Open Player of the decade list, so someone like Rose Meltzer, who I won't look it up, but I am 100 % sure would be ranked #1 on Women's Player of the Decade for 2000s would also have a very high ranking on the Open Player of the Year race as she deserves.

 

I do not even mean this to be disparaging to the top players on the women's circuit. Almost all of the top players in those events are bridge professionals, many of whom I respect as bridge players, not just women bridge players. I would never say they should not make a living playing in these events, which naturally they're in higher demand for, and thus can make more money in.

 

I do not even mean to discuss whether you think women's events should exist at all. I understand if you think they should not. However, it is a travesty to have women's events but no masterpoint classification or seperate races for those who participate in those events.

 

For starters, if you have done the best in the women's events, that should be acknowledged, and should be a source of immense pride. But to not acknowledge that these are different events, of different calibers of field, and are limited based on something, just seems unjust, like the ACBL is trying to hide this fact. It is unfair to both the open players, and the women players. Hell, if I was Rose Meltzer I would be quite pissed about it, not because I am not overtly recognized as the most successful woman of the 2000's, but because if you simply glance over the list it will look like the other women on the list have achievements close to her caliber.

 

And again, I am of course not saying that this makes Rose Meltzer the best woman player necessarily. But the platinum point races are not about who is the best, it's about who achieved the most. Obviously it is not a rating system. If we are recognizing achievements, it is terrible that Rose Meltzer's name can be close or even below someone who dominates the woman's circuit. She may or may not be as good as the woman's circuit player, but she has certainly achieved more and it's not even remotely close.

 

So the fact that women's events are colored the same as open events is really bad to me, but one might argue that it is OK as long as they get far less points for winning one of those events than the premier events pay. I think that would be a bad argument, but that is not even remotely close to true in the current environment.

 

For instance, the Life Master Pairs and the Women's life master pairs.

 

2nd in the open LM pairs got 93.75 platinum points (full disclosure, this was me, but that is completely irrelevant to this point, hopefully you will believe me!). This was based on 164 tables.

 

1st in the women's LM pairs got 100.00 platinum points. This was based on 52 tables.

 

3rd in the LMs was ~70, 2nd in the womens was ~75... etc etc. These events almost pay the same, where the women's event is not only less than 1/3rd the size (so 3 times easier to win if the pairs in each event were equally good), but also obviously in much weaker competition. Notably, many of the top women play the open events during pairs, as it's far more common to get a professional engagement for teams than pairs. For instance, Auken/Von Armin played the open pairs, and I'm sure they're on anyones top 5 pair in the world for women.

 

Hopefully you can see how ridiculous the current state is.

 

(Sorry if I offended anyone with that part of my post, I have great respect for a lot of women pros, for instance Mildreed Breed and Jenny Ryman especially as I have played with them both on OPEN regional teams, and consider them my peers, these are just a few of MANY, and obviously I have great respect and even envy for the achievements of Rose Meltzer).

 

I agree with the general point of the OP; there needs to be some pigment of color that measures your success in the toughest fields. What events should classify?

 

-This pigment MUST exclude events that are restricted for these reasons: No juniors, no seniors, no women, no 0-5000. Arguably the NAOP could be excluded, but I don't think so.

 

-After that, there is judgement involved. I would say any event that is the premier event is obviously in. Any event that is significantly detracted from by the main event being played should be OUT. What is significantly detracted from? Well, I would obviously include the 3 day LM pairs in the summer even though the finals/semi finals of the GNT are being played. I would also include the 2 day swisses at the end of the spring/summer nationals, despite being concurrent with the semis/finals or finals of the spingold/vandy. Missing the "best" 2 or 4 teams from the event hurts the overall field, but there are so many excellent teams I don't think 4 missing teams is enough to take away premier event status from these events.

 

-Maybe these rules are too loose for the litigator types, but you get my point.

 

I believe this leaves a list of premier event pigment (let's say Titanium) events as:

 

Spring:

 

-NAOP Flight A

-Platinum Pairs.

-Vanderbilt

-2 day swiss

 

Summer:

 

-GNT super flight

-3 day LM pairs

-Spingold

-2 day swiss

 

Fall:

 

-2 day pairs

-2 day BAM

-Blue Ribbon pairs

-Reisinger.

 

All other unrestricted national events will retain a different color, let's say this is platinum.

 

Seniors will have their own points/races. Women's will have their own points/races. Mixed will have their own color, but count towards the women's races. The 0-5000 events can have their gold etc as they are now.

 

This will solve the masterpoint race issues. Everyone will be recognized for their achievements in their fields.

 

There will be new exciting women's rankings (not tongue-in-cheek, after Rose I'm not sure who is the most successful woman player of the 2000s including open/mixed/womens, I would guess Jill Meyers or Shawn Quinn). There will be more legitimate measures of success in premier events to actually see who is achieving the most.

 

You could then add a "Platinum Player" race, to show accomplishments in secondary open national events. This might breed new competition and excitement. The other idea I had was a simple "Open National Player" race if you don't like the Platinum race. This would be titanium + platinum points. I think this is a bad race because it will basically be a duplicate in the top spots at least for the Player of the Year race and the Open National Player of the year race.

 

It's true a Platinum Player race might incentivize people to play secondary events, for instance the 3 day swiss rather than the Reisinger. But why is that such a bad thing? The Premier events don't have to be bigger, small fields of the top players in the world are very exciting.

 

If you read all of this, I'm impressed. If you are not impressed with the details of what I'm saying, then I just ask you to think my basic premises:

 

1) Masterpoint races should measure achievement in the field that you play in.

2) Women's events and open events are different fields.

3) Ergo, having the same color of points for women's events and open events is absurd.

 

That is something I feel strongly about, and tbh I really doubt any top woman player would disagree.

[Jlall]

Also, full disclosure as I don't want it to seem like I am saying I always play in the premier events or anything like that. I have NEVER played in the Reisinger before. I have played the swiss every single time, when I was younger it was because I wanted my first national win and that seemed like an easy one, and the past 5 or 6 years I've simply been hired onto teams that have played the swiss.

 

Naturally I would like this to change someday!

 

In fact, I should DEFINITELY have mentioned that similar to how I feel like 1st womens > 2nd open etc,

 

In the swiss for 2nd place I won 120 points. My former partner and great friend Kevin Bathurst was 3rd in the Reisinger and won ~112. That is really an LOL, and it follows the same pattern as the womens LM pairs vs the open LM pairs (2<1, 3<2 etc for good event/weaker event).

 

Honestly I do not care at all about this as long as the events give out DIFFERENT masterpoints. In my proposed outline, I would have gotten 120 platinum, and Kevin would have gotten 112 titanium. This would accurately reflect that he did FAR better than me.

 

But for the sake of perfection, the scaling should be different to adjust for this problem. I see no problem with just awarding something like 500 points to the winner of the reisinger/spingold/vanderbilt etc and going from there. Seem out of proportion? Good, it should! They are the premier events of a national championship! They SHOULD be worth 10 times as many total points as a regional knockout. The ACBL seems gunshy to do something like this for some reason.

 

But total points are pretty meaningless for people competing at these levels, so I don't think it matters. Much more important is to create meaningful masterpoint races by having different colors for The Reisinger, The 3 day swiss, and the women's.

[hrothgar]

If you read all of this, I'm impressed. If you are not impressed with the details of what I'm saying, then I just ask you to think my basic premises:

 

1) Masterpoint races should measure achievement in the field that you play in.

2) Women's events and open events are different fields.

3) Ergo, having the same color of points for women's events and open events is absurd.

 

That is something I feel strongly about, and tbh I really doubt any top woman player would disagree.

FWIW

 

1. I did read it all

2. I agree with your thesis

 

I did, however, appreciate the summary

[Aberlour10]

It's true a Platinum Player race might incentivize people to play secondary events, for instance the 3 day swiss rather than the Reisinger. But why is that such a bad thing? The Premier events don't have to be bigger, small fields of the top players in the world are very exciting.

Thx for your very comprehensive posting Justin, it helps to understand mechanisms in the ACBL land for an outsider like me.

One thought about your above paragraph...

 

The entire team Gromov seemed to be hired for the swiss event, I think it's for the first time they did not play in Reisinger. Surely it doesnt reduce alone the value of this BAM in any way...but what if several "major sponsors" follow this example, not only Reisinger field will be smaller, but the number of the top stars too...= quality and/or value?

 

Robert

[Jlall]

It's true a Platinum Player race might incentivize people to play secondary events, for instance the 3 day swiss rather than the Reisinger. But why is that such a bad thing? The Premier events don't have to be bigger, small fields of the top players in the world are very exciting.

Thx for your very comprehensive posting Justin, it helps to understand mechanisms in the ACBL land for an outsider like me.

One thought about your above paragraph...

 

The entire team Gromov seemed to be hired for the swiss event, I think it's for the first time they did not play in Reisinger. Surely it doesnt reduce alone the value of this BAM in any way...but what if several "major sponsors" follow this example, not only Reisinger field will be smaller, but the number of the top stars too...= quality and/or value?

 

Robert

Sure, this has been happening more and more even, the swiss is more and more infested with players you would expect to be in the Reisinger. Carolyn (Lynch) in particular has had two fantastic teams the last 2 years as you note.

 

I would say that making the Reisinger a Titanium point event (in my example) would cement it as the premier event. However, you also have a long standing tradition (sure that could change), and the super significant that Reisinger performances count toward seeding for the US Team Trials.

 

Recently on this forum there was a bit of a stir that Nickell got a bye to the Semis of the trials. For sure, seeding can be extremely important.

 

Most of these top tier sponsors hire the very best teams in order to win the very best events. Most of them have the eventual goal of respresenting the US in the world championships, and winning that.

 

So basically, the way everything has been set up, the Reisinger is the important and prestigious event, calling it a Titanium point event will simply add to that.

 

That is of course not to mention that playing a 2 session 1 section BAM for the event has inherently far far less luck involved than playing 8 matches of 7 boards VP 20 in a swiss in a 30 team field. A big reason the Reisinger is more prestigious is because it is certainly a truer test of skill even if the teams in both were equally good.

 

Also, I would like to say that I think Carolyn (Lynch) is an anomaly in hiring truly top tier teams because she is a relative new comer onto the national circuit compared to her competition. She is improving very quickly (as seen by her amazing successes recently), and I will not be surprised to see her confident enough to play the Reisinger next year.

[TimG]

Seniors will have their own points/races. Women's will have their own points/races. Mixed will have their own color, but count towards the women's races. The 0-5000 events can have their gold etc as they are now.

I think you should eliminate all cross qualification; I don't think Mixed should count toward Women's.

[glen]

I think you should eliminate all cross qualification; I don't think Mixed should count toward Women's.

For mixed they could used mixed up points, such as Plattitanium.

[PrecisionL]

Basically even bracket 1 at tough regionals (maybe Gatlinburg and a few others are exceptions) don't really compare to the level of competition that you can get in the late stages of a national event. For many people, nationals are one of the only times of the year that they can expect to play top quality bridge.

Gatlinburg is NOT an exception! I have played in Gatlinburg brackets 5 - 7, have you not noticed the 60,000 minimum Team MP to get in bracket 1.

 

I have also missed playing against Rodwell & Cheek's team in the Richmond Regional 2 years ago because he lost in the KO Bracket 1 semi-final. :)

 

Larry

 

And the limit of MP was about 60 this year for a win in Gatlinburg's Bracket 1.

 

Gatlinburg 2009

Tues-Wed KO Bkt 1 15 Tables (28 Brackets)

MPs Rank Names

60.43 1 Andrew Rosenthal - Aaron Silverstein - Joe Grue, New York NY; Curtis Cheek, Las Vegas NV

42.30 2 John Onstott - Iype Koshy, New Orleans LA; Jim Krekorian, New York NY; Garey Hayden, Tucson AZ

24.17 3/4 Jim Mahaffey, Winter Park FL; Gary Cohler, Miami FL; Michael Rosenberg, New Rochelle NY; Michael Seamon, Hollywood FL; Jacek Pszczola, Chapel Hill NC; Sam Lev, New York NY

24.17 3/4 John Russell, North Barringto IL; Barry Harper, Regina SK; Bruce Parent-Norman Coombs, Brookville IN

 

Wed-Thurs KO Bkt 1 (28 Brackets)

16 Tables

MPs Rank Names

59.60 1 Robert Hampton, Blythewood SC; Gavin Wolpert, Singer Island FL; John Hurd, New York NY; Joel Wooldridge, Williamsville NY; Steve Weinstein, Andes NY; Robert Levin, Bronx NY

 

41.72 2 Carolyn Lynch, Scottsdale AZ; Mike Passell, Las Vegas NV; Jeff Meckstroth, Tampa FL; Eric Rodwell, Clearwater Bch FL; Cezary Balicki, Smolec Poland; Adam Zmudzinski, Katowice 40-479 Poland

 

Thu-Fri KO Bkt 1 (25 Brackets)

16 Tables

MPs Rank Names

61.46 1 Jim Mahaffey, Winter Park FL; Gary Cohler, Miami FL; Michael Rosenberg, New Rochelle NY; Sam Lev, New York NY; Michael Seamon, Hollywood FL; Jacek Pszczola, Chapel Hill NC

 

43.02 2 Claude Vogel, Chicago IL; George Jacobs, Hinsdale IL; Chris Compton, Dallas TX; Ron Smith, San Francisco CA

[fred]

Some random thoughts that touch upon points that others have mentioned:

 

1. This year in San Diego I found myself caring about how many masterpoints I won for the first time in the 25+ years I have been an ACBL member. The reason is that I had a real chance to be "Player of the Year". Needless to say, I agree with Justin that this is a meaningful contest.

 

2. I finished 10th in the first (Open) pairs event in San Diego while my wife, Sheri, finished 6th in the Women's Pairs that was run at the same time. Before the next day's Daily Bulletin came out, we found it amusing to speculate as to which of our achievements was "better" (based on number of masterpoints won). It turns out Sheri's was (by about 3 Platinum Points if I recall correctly). Sheri thought this was absurd and I can't say I disagree with her.

 

3. I once played in a knockout in Gatlinburg when all 4 teams in the semi-finals were so strong that nobody would be even remotely surprised if any one of these teams won an event like the Spingold. Probably this was an extremely unusual state of affairs - at the time it seemed quite remarkable.

 

4. IMO the Reisinger is a really great event. Play in it if you get the chance!

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[debrose]

I did read Justin's entire post, and I do not disagree with his basic premises, as summarized at the end. A couple of the details which I question:

 

What if Rose Meltzer did not wish for her rank as a "woman player" to be acknowledged? Perhaps she feels her great accomplishments as a bridge player are even more meaningful without that reference - or maybe it just has no relevance.

 

Personally, when I used to play exclusively in open events, I cringed when people described me in terms of how good a "woman player" I was. At the time I felt there was no more justification for this than discussing who was the "best left-handed player", or best "Chinese-American player", etc. Yes, there existed separate women's events, but I didn't play in them. I really wanted a chance to be evaluated as "a bridge player", not "a woman player", and I found it very frustrating when I learned that for the most part I had no chance of that happening. We have no objective ranking system, and most people would always think of me as a "woman player."

 

Once I started playing in women's events, I certainly could no longer dispute the characterization. Of course I'd already resigned myself to the fact that I was going to be thought of as a "woman player" whether I played in those events or not. However, if I ever have a year in which I play exclusively in open premium events at the Nationals, I for one will prefer to have whatever "titanium point" rank I achieve acknowledged without reference to the fact that I was born female.

 

Justin's suggestion regarding mixed points counting towards the women's ranking, reminded me of something I recently learned. In the WBF, points earned in mixed events count for a man toward his open ranking, while for a woman they count toward her women's ranking. This is relevant to me in that I am a "Women's Grand Master", but in the open not even a "World Master." From my reading of the conditions of contest, this would mean I couldn't enter a semi-final or final round of the World Open Pairs with a partner who had been eliminated from the Rosenblum too late to play the qualifying round. If I continue to play only WBF women's and mixed events, I'll have no opportunity to earn open points, while the man in my mixed partnership will get those points for the same achievement. This also seems wrong for a woman who does not participate in WBF women's events - only open or mixed. Shouldn't she be able to choose to have her mixed points count the same way they do for her male partner? I confess, I have not appealed to the WBF on this, and for all I know such a request would be readily granted.

[fred]

Personally, when I used to play exclusively in open events, I cringed when people described me in terms of how good a "woman player" I was.

I am not sure if this will make you feel any better, but in 1991 I thought you were the best "junior player" in the world :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com