Why bother playing in the Reisinger ?

[dbdance10]

Bridge is also a social and competitive activity.  I think it's well established that the sexes differ in both these areas.  Women are generally more social, while men are probably more fierce competitors.

We have no idea whether that's true or not, because we've never even remotely tried to give the sexes an equal playing field. Be cautious when you cite "genetics"--that's often just a cop-out.

[Jlall]

Isn't there a two-day swiss at one of the other NABCs?  They presumably want to have a 3-day swiss to make this one worth more.

Heh, but it's worth way less. There's a 2 day swiss at the end of both the spring and summer nationals, and they are both extremely tough events since there are either 2 or 4 teams left in the spingold/vandy when they start. There are probably 40 really good teams these that enter each of those events, so 36 or 38 of them are left to play the 2 day swisses.

 

Compare this to the 3 day swiss which starts the same day as arguably the most prestigious national event that exists, and certainly one of the top 3 most prestigious, and its a much much easier event.

 

I'm quite sure they have the 3 day swiss to make the Reisinger more prestigious. After all, the goal should be for the main event to be MORE presitigious, not for the secondary event to be more prestigious at the expense of the primary one.

 

Would the Cavendish have its allure if there was 8 random pairs for every star studded one? Of course not. The Reisinger is not a random crap shoot because it's starts off very small and very tough, and by the end it is one section and insanely tough. If the finals had 5 sections with some pretty good teams who lucked in and had no chance, some good teams that were probably 50/50 to make it with such a big field, and some great teams, it would just be which great teams beat up on the weak ones better, and ultimately which ones got luckier to play the bad teams when they made the stupid mistakes, and which ones got fixed by the stupid mistakes the most.

 

Sorry to say it, but ultimately every pair game ends up like this except for the blue ribbons, but even that is quite large at the end (3 sections, with basically open entry so there are a ton of random pairs who could get lucky and get into the final breaking average every session).

 

I am all for everyone being able to play everyone, and I think it's great that that is how everything is set up. However, most teams don't want to play in an event that they have no chance of winning, so making the secondary event start at the same time allows those people to enter that, allows the teams that want to take a shot to enter the main event, and makes the event less random and tougher, which is good for everyone.

 

For this reason I am also in favor of all the 0-5000 events that exist, except there are a lot of random/bad >5000 players who have no chance of winning also, so I wish it was more like "The Blue Ribbon Pairs" and the "3 day imp pairs" going at the same time, aka an unrestricted secondary event.

 

Again, if this were to happen, the main events need to award a different color point, and be categorized as a main event. Right now the Reisinger/NA swiss are the only combo of open national events that go on at the same time, I'm happy to see the Platinum Pairs/imp pairs will be the same way, and expect it to easily surpass the Blue Ribbons as the most prestigious pair game in the world, and that is BECAUSE of the existence of the imp pairs. It's good for everyone.

[Mbodell]

For this reason I am also in favor of all the 0-5000 events that exist, except there are a lot of random/bad >5000 players who have no chance of winning also, so I wish it was more like "The Blue Ribbon Pairs" and the "3 day imp pairs" going at the same time, aka an unrestricted secondary event.

For various definitions of "random/bad", maybe. I mean there are fewer than 2000 people with >5000. So sure, some reasonable percentage will not have much of a chance to win an open national event without sponsorship, but there can't be that many that would actually be bad as opposed to merely less than expert players.

 

I agree that the double open events makes the premier events more prestigious. The other thing that the Reisinger has going for it is the 2 day Open BAM earlier in the nationals. For many of us that gives us a chance to play a "national BAM" and then feel satisfied playing the 3-day swiss rather than trying the Reisinger.

 

And re the mini- and mirco- events I know as a non-expert improving player I like being able to play a mix of the best open events where there is the best competition and most learning and the limited national events (NAP, GNT, 0-1500, 0-5000, red ribbons) where one can challenge for winning the event. It is interesting that next year the 0-5000 blue ribbons are going to 3 day to match the full blues.

[Jlall]

For various definitions of "random/bad", maybe. I mean there are fewer than 2000 people with >5000. So sure, some reasonable percentage will not have much of a chance to win an open national event without sponsorship, but there can't be that many that would actually be bad as opposed to merely less than expert players.

Yes this was not the most polite way to say it. Obviously I meant it in the context of "have no chance to win the event." Many players are good and have no chance to win the blue ribbon pairs.

 

My point is simply that a side open event is great for these people who want to play in a national, and want to have a chance to win. It is also great for the people in the blue ribbon who either have a chance to win, or simply want to try to compete with the best and see how they do, despite having no chance to win. I don't see how it is beneficial to ANYONE to force these players to play in the main event.

[MarkDean]

I agree about making the prestigous events as strong as possible. I feel this way even as a player who has no chance to win the Reisinger or the Blue Ribbons. Even at the regional level, I much prefer A/X and B/C/D events to having straitified or stratiflighted or whatever events.

 

I used to not care about masterpoints, but the introduction of the platinum pairs has changed things. As a player who does not get to play too many national events and enjoys playing in the tough ones, I do feel the rewards are not equitable. In San Francisco, we made it to the last day of the blue ribbons and the second day of the reisinger and got essentially zero platinum points: those certainly felt like accomplishments which should count toward being able to play in the platinum pairs.

[TimG]

Compare this to the 3 day swiss which starts the same day as arguably the most prestigious national event that exists, and certainly one of the top 3 most prestigious, and its a much much easier event.

 

I'm quite sure they have the 3 day swiss to make the Reisinger more prestigious. After all, the goal should be for the main event to be MORE presitigious, not for the secondary event to be more prestigious at the expense of the primary one.

 

Would the Cavendish have its allure if there was 8 random pairs for every star studded one? Of course not. The Reisinger is not a random crap shoot because it's starts off very small and very tough, and by the end it is one section and insanely tough. If the finals had 5 sections with some pretty good teams who lucked in and had no chance, some good teams that were probably 50/50 to make it with such a big field, and some great teams, it would just be which great teams beat up on the weak ones better, and ultimately which ones got luckier to play the bad teams when they made the stupid mistakes, and which ones got fixed by the stupid mistakes the most.

 

Sorry to say it, but ultimately every pair game ends up like this except for the blue ribbons, but even that is quite large at the end (3 sections, with basically open entry so there are a ton of random pairs who could get lucky and get into the final breaking average every session).

Perhaps the answer is not to siphon off players into "secondary" events that start at the same time but rather to add a day to the Blue Ribbon Pairs and Reisinger. Then the "secondary" events could start on Day 2 or Day 3 of the "premier" events. This might get you down to a one section final in the Blue Ribbon and would allow the Reisinger to accommodate more entries without making deep cuts or moving away from a one section final.

[JanM]

Perhaps the answer is not to siphon off players into "secondary" events that start at the same time but rather to add a day to the Blue Ribbon Pairs and Reisinger.  Then the "secondary" events could start on Day 2 or Day 3 of the "premier" events.  This might get you down to a one section final in the Blue Ribbon and would allow the Reisinger to accommodate more entries without making deep cuts or moving away from a one section final.

You're right, but the NABC schedule is already incredibly "crowded." If you added a day to the BRP or Reisinger you'd make it even more difficult to schedule things.

 

Personally, as someone who has no chance of winning the Reisinger, it's still probably my favorite event (if only I could convince partners and teammates of that). I love the fact that the NAS is opposite the Reisinger, because it means that the Reisinger field, even the first day, is about the best NABC field you can find (and I don't mean for the first day - I'd happily bet on the players in the first day of the Reisinger against the players in the final day of the BRP). So if what you enjoy is playing against the best, you can do that by entering the Reisinger. If you play well and are lucky, you can make the second day and play in an even better field, and if a miracle happens and you make the third day...

 

The Vanderbilt & Spingold aren't the same, at least for someone like me, who's been around for a while and won some things, (it would be the same for someone who plays a lot). I'm seeded somewhere in the middle of the field, so in order to play a match against a top-seeded team I probably need to win at least two and often 3 matches.

 

As for the Women's events, I have mixed feelings - I don't happen to like them, but I don't see why those who do shouldn't be entitled to have them. That's the same way I feel about the mini-Spingolds, btw - if I were eligible for them, I wouldn't want to play in them, but I don't see any harm in them and they make the "main event" smaller, which IMO is a good thing. The Open BAM and whatever the 2 day Open pair event at the beginning of the Fall NABC is called are probably stronger because the people who want to play in the Women's events can do so. Certainly they are stronger because of the concurrent Senior KO. I don't much care about masterpoints and I know that they aren't a good measure of ability, so I don't have an opinion about the numbers awarded for the different events. Surely everyone knows that the "real" events (essentially Justin's list) are under-rewarded in terms of masterpoints. That's why for Trials byes and seeding, there is a whole separate schedule of Positioning Points that are awarded only for the Vanderbilt, Spingold & Reisinger. But most of the players who play in the "real" events don't care about masterpoints, so it doesn't matter.

 

Having attended a lot of Women's committee meetings, I know the argument for more masterpoints than seems right given the number of players who enter those events. It is that the top women mostly play in the Women's events (that's certainly true for teams, and pretty true for pairs - Sabine & Daniela are an exception. I remember counting the number of women pairs in the first day of the first Fall Open pair event one year and comparing it to the third day of the BRP - I suppose it was distorted by the fact that I was counting myself, but the number was about the same, I don't remember how many any more, but about 3).

 

If you want to do something about the Women's events, maybe one place to start would be with the WBF, which is about to add a "Girls" event to the Junior Championships, perpetuating the division by sexes. So long as there are Women's World Championships, it's going to be tough to change the ACBL Women's events. I've even had people argue that we need to encourage more women to play in the NABC Women's events in order to prepare them for the World Women's events or we'll lose our strong position in those events. I happen to disagree with that argument, but it's definitely out there.

[awm]

The argument for the "Girls" event is different from the argument for women's events in general, and in fact I think the "Girls" event is a very good idea.

 

Junior bridge is extremely male-dominated. Looking at the field in the world juniors, most teams are all male and virtually none have more than one woman. There are very few young women playing bridge in the US, especially if we don't count the Swedish juniors (they are, after all, Swedish). It is also worth mentioning that the Swedish juniors got their start by playing in the European "Girls" event (subsequently they have played in a wide range of open events).

 

The lack of young female bridge players is a serious problem. While I don't believe that women are "inherently worse at bridge than men," I do believe that a huge reason that most of the top open players are male is that the best bridge players usually start quite young, and the folks in their teens and 20s who are playing a lot of bridge are overwhelmingly male.

 

Of course, the attitudes of (many of) the young men towards the young women (i.e. viewing them as "groupies" rather than as serious bridge players) doesn't help, and the fact that these attitudes seem to be encouraged rather than stomped out by some of the juniors' "coaches" is even worse... but giving the young women their own event will be a substantial step forward.

[TimG]

You're right, but the NABC schedule is already incredibly "crowded." If you added a day to the BRP or Reisinger you'd make it even more difficult to schedule things.

It was my intention to make a suggestion for improving the events without regard for scheduling; it is my opinion that the schedule should be worked to fit the premier events rather than the premier events designed to fit the scheduled. If this means losing one of the "secondary" events, so be it.

[jonottawa]

While we're at it, might want to revisit the idea of allowing a CWTC win to count as your 'national win' for Grand Life Master eligibility.

 

As to the Player of the Year race, I think the problem could be solved by simply changing the awards for all non-top-tier national events from 100% platinum to 50%gold-50% platinum.

 

As to the inflated masterpoint awards for certain restricted events, points schmoints, shrug. I'm with Jan on this and gimping their awards would probably kill the events entirely in some cases.

[jjbrr]

Of course, the attitudes of (many of) the young men towards the young women (i.e. viewing them as "groupies" rather than as serious bridge players) doesn't help, and the fact that these attitudes seem to be encouraged rather than stomped out by some of the juniors' "coaches" is even worse...

What?

[rogerclee]

Of course, the attitudes of (many of) the young men towards the young women (i.e. viewing them as "groupies" rather than as serious bridge players) doesn't help, and the fact that these attitudes seem to be encouraged rather than stomped out by some of the juniors' "coaches" is even worse...

What?

Adam it would not surprise me at all if someone in the ACBL junior program at some point was treated poorly because she was a woman. However it would surprise me if what you heard was said in complete seriousness, rather than just a bad/crass joke taken the wrong way, but let's assume that what you said is true for the moment.

 

As far as I can tell you do not have first hand knowledge of the way the ACBL junior program is run, while it would be safe to say that me and many of my friends do. The volunteers and coaches and captains of the USA junior teams change every year. When you make inflammatory statements like you do without first-hand knowledge of the way things currently are (or were) in the ACBL junior program, you detract from all the great efforts made by people like Jan Martel, Ron Smith, Howard Weinstein, etc. who as far as I can tell have done nothing except their best to promote junior bridge and really have a positive impact on people like me. Maybe in the past there was one, or even multiple, bad coaches who were biased or unqualified for their positions in some way or another, but from what I've seen in the last few years, the ACBL junior program does not have any of the problems you seem to think it has. I am not saying it's perfect, but it is hard to criticize it, given that much of the work is done essentially by volunteers.

 

I think it is unfair for you to continue disseminating the idea that the ACBL junior program is corrupt or biased in some way against women. In my opinion it is not.

[awm]

I've certainly talked to a number of women who attended junior camps in the past and have corroborated these stories. It may be worth noting that I'm talking about the coaches at junior camp here... the actual coaches of the junior teams typically haven't had any women to work with!

 

How many women have been on the US under 26 and under 28 junior teams in the last decade?

 

The only ones who come to mind are Jenny Ryman (who's really a product of the European junior program, not the USA one) and several on the rather unusual team from 2002 (Lindsay Pearlman, Lisa Burton) who do not seem to be heavily involved with tournament bridge any more. Of course, the conditions of contest for the trials were quickly changed to prevent such teams from qualifying in future. For the past few cycles, other than the time Jenny Ryman was on the team, were there any women?

 

If you look at the U21 team, where almost any serious bridge player meeting the age restriction can get on the team, how many women have there been? Angela Collura maybe? Please help, I'm blanking on the other names.

 

It seems clear that even with the very high number of teams the US is sending to youth/junior bridge events, the number of women on these teams is something like "one every few years" at most. Regardless of whether you believe me about the direct causes of this problem, it is a problem. And it might have something to do with the lack of women at the elite levels of the game.

[rogerclee]

How many women have been on the US under 26 and under 28 junior teams in the last decade?

Are you trying to conclude that this is due to some sort of bias? I don't inherently see any evidence from this. Is your implication that talented young women who show promise don't develop as players because less-talented men are favored? If so, as someone who has been through the fairly rigorous process of trying to come up with the best possible teams to play in junior events, I can tell you that skill level and talent are the only traits under consideration. As far as I can tell, IMO, for the past few internationals, the U26/U28 team has been as strong as possible (more or less, "strong as possible" is of course incredibly subjective).

 

Of course, the conditions of contest for the trials were quickly changed to prevent such teams from qualifying in future. For the past few cycles, other than the time Jenny Ryman was on the team, were there any women?

Is this a reference to the rule that if a junior teams wins a world championship outright, they are entitled to play for USA1 the next time around if eligible? I don't even understand what possible pro-male bias could be inherent in this rule.

 

You seem to think that the absence of women is a problem for junior bridge. Maybe it is, but I am more concerned with the team being as good as possible every year. Due to the overwhelming percentage of young bridge players being men, it happens that most years it is an all men's team. Are you arguing that there was anyone except Justin/Kevin/Joel/Johnny/etc who was even remotely as qualified to play as USA1 during the string of medals for America? If not, are you arguing that the team should have just been worse to accommodate much lesser players who happened to be women? Just look at their successes, both as juniors and as reputations for being some of the best open players period. I thought this would be proof enough for anyone that the USA junior program works, and I think they would agree that the junior program was instrumental in making real players out of them.

 

Anyway I am hoping Debbie Rosenberg at some point can weigh in on this, since she can probably speak from first-hand experience from a different point of view.

[eyhung]

You seem to think that the absence of women is a problem for junior bridge.

And for what it's worth, the Bay Area has had a significant number of young women playing bridge in the past few years. I can think of seven right off the top of my head. Maybe they're not good enough to represent the US, but most people aren't good enough to beat the guys like Justin/Grue/Johnny/Kranyak.

[TimG]

I think it is quite likely that in the past it has been easier for an up and coming male player to find partners and mentors than it was for an up and coming female player. Male-female partnerships, even in the junior ranks, often carried with them rumor and innuendo that same-sex partnerships did not have to deal with. This made it harder for females because it severely limited the pool of prospective partners.

 

The bias was not in the selection of the team, but in the development of players who might someday compete to be on the team. It quite likely still exists, but it has been many years since I had anything to do with Junior bridge, so I cannot say.

[cherdanno]

I think it is quite likely that in the past it has been easier for an up and coming male player to find partners and mentors than it was for an up and coming female player. Male-female partnerships, even in the junior ranks, often carried with them rumor and innuendo that same-sex partnerships did not have to deal with. This made it harder for females because it severely limited the pool of prospective partners.

 

The bias was not in the selection of the team, but in the development of players who might someday compete to be on the team. It quite likely still exists, but it has been many years since I had anything to do with Junior bridge, so I cannot say.

Your point sounds plausible. However, I would expect that the introduction of girls' events reinforces that bias, rather than helping with it.

[debrose]

Anyway I am hoping Debbie Rosenberg at some point can weigh in on this, since she can probably speak from first-hand experience from a different point of view.

Hi Roger. I'm afraid I know virtually nothing about the junior program of the past 15 years. I played in the world juniors in 1991 and 1993. The junior program was really just getting started then - I'm pretty sure that 1991 was the first junior team which wasn't at least mostly made of of the winners of a collegiate championship (I think it was 1989 in which a trials was held to add one pair to the 4-handed collegiate team). Rather than discrimination against having women play, if anything there may have been affirmative action in order to include what I believe was the only women's pair in the trials on one of the 1991 teams (I was unavailable for that trials, and later replaced one of those players when she dropped out). The six pairs for the 1993 teams were, I believe, selected purely from a trials (though I think the captains juggled who would be on which team). I'm sorry to say that I don't recall whether there were any women other than myself playing in that trials.

I'd be very sad to learn that young women are having the experiences awm described at junior camps. If that's what you were hoping I could speak to, sorry I can't help.

[awm]

My points are just:

 

1. There are not many young women playing serious bridge, especially at the "top junior" level.

2. This is potentially a problem, since virtually all elite-level players got started young.

3. Regardless of the reason, it would be good to create more opportunities for young women.

4. A girls event would do this.

5. Sweden has had a lot more success than the US in this respect, in part because of the girls event.

 

As to why there are not a lot of young women involved in US junior bridge, there are a lot of reasons. While I do think there are a lot of biases in the team selection process (for example, I think Marc Glickman got a bad deal), I don't think that's the direct reason there are not more women on the team.

 

My opinion is that the problem is earlier than the selection process. Young female players are not treated very well by their young male counterparts. You don't see many young men playing with young women, especially if they're not romantically involved. When they do play (say in an individual or midnight game) frequently the young men don't play "real bridge" and instead play as if they were carrying a very weak student (even when the female player is as good or arguably better than the male player). Junior events often seem to involve a lot of drinking and sleeping around, a very "macho" environment which is not conducive to young women who want to play serious bridge. Even at the upper levels, there are a lot of men who simply don't take women seriously as bridge players, who conclude whenever a woman comes to the table that she is a weak player and try to take advantage. Some of this attitude comes through at junior camps and activities, and there is certainly a lack of effort on the part of some chaperones to tone down the drinking and bed-hopping "fraternity" atmosphere at some of these events.

 

The upshot is that women are almost always underrated. When they are good, people say they're good "for a girl." When they're bad it's blamed on their gender. It's hard for them to get good partners, and if they do, there are often rumors about physical relationships between partners. A lot of young women who are promising players give up bridge. The long-term effect of this is that it hinders their bridge development (or even ends it) and by the time selection comes up for the junior teams there aren't a lot of serious female candidates. Of course, if there was a serious female candidate she'd be at a huge disadvantage because the boys likely wouldn't want to partner with her, or wouldn't think she's worth "adding" to a team... but I agree with Roger that in general there haven't been such serious candidates. The point is that (assuming we don't believe women are inherently bad at bridge) there should be such candidates, and we should try to find ways to encourage/create them. The girls event has been successful in Europe -- the former members of the Swedish Girls Team are now playing professionally in the US and placing in serious open (or women's) events.

[karlson]

Adam, while I agree with your point that a girls' event might actually be good for bridge and encourage people to play, I have no idea where you're getting these harassment/disrespect/frat-atmosphere stories from, and I've been now to three reasonably major junior tournaments as well as a camp. I don't think the amount of partying and hooking up is any more (and in fact is probably less) than with any other activity where lots of teenagers are involved.

 

I don't often disagree with your points on organizational matters but I'm pretty sure that here you're stuck on some stories that just aren't true, at least in the recent years when I was around (and people will reasonably take them as personal attacks).

 

Also, I don't think the fact that no girls are at the upper tier in terms of bridge is particularly damning. If you look at international junior (or open for that matter) rosters, there are fairly few teams with a significant number of girls. Yes, there are the Swedes, and obviously the Dutch have one pair, and the Germans sometimes have a pair, but it's not like every other team in the event is full of girls except us.

[Tomi2]

Adam, while I agree with your point that a girls' event might actually be good for bridge and encourage people to play, I have no idea where you're getting these harassment/disrespect/frat-atmosphere stories from, and I've been now to three reasonably major junior tournaments as well as a camp. I don't think the amount of partying and hooking up is any more (and in fact is probably less) than with any other activity where lots of teenagers are involved.

 

I don't often disagree with your points on organizational matters but I'm pretty sure that here you're stuck on some stories that just aren't true, at least in the recent years when I was around (and people will reasonably take them as personal attacks).

 

Also, I don't think the fact that no girls are at the upper tier in terms of bridge is particularly damning. If you look at international junior (or open for that matter) rosters, there are fairly few teams with a significant number of girls. Yes, there are the Swedes, and obviously the Dutch have one pair, and the Germans sometimes have a pair, but it's not like every other team in the event is full of girls except us.

you underestimate this a (little) bit.

In the World Juniors Championships 2008, additional to the girls mentioned, Italy had Irene Baroni playing in their team and Danisch Anne-Sofie Houlberg became World Champion in that event.

Polish girl Joanna Krawczyk won a medal in the pairs event and finished 4th in the individual.

So the European teams had approx. average 1 girl per team whily I can't remember having played against any girl from America, Asia Australia or Africa, but I may be wrong.

 

one out of six is better than no girls at all. All of the players mentioned by you or me are recognized and respected as good players.

 

The girls in our Team (Maria Würmseer and Cristina Giampietro) also started in the Girls' event in 2004 and now are collecting their medals in all kind of Women, Mixed AND Open events. They will soon join our Women national team

 

The Girls event gives young girls from 15 to 20 an aim to keep on playing Bridge, I think it is a good event and should be supported by USBF too.

[jjbrr]

Adam, I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I think you're way, way, way off target with your impressions of the junior world. So much, in fact, that I would respectfully ask you to stop spreading these rumors, in case someone mistakenly interprets them as fact and brings them to the attention of anyone with clout in the ACBL/USBF. We have trouble getting funding as it is.

 

I'm trying very hard to think of examples of the situations you've offered, and I just have no clue what you're talking about. The fact that there is a problem with the scarcity of young female players should be enough to indicate that the sample size you've drawn your generalizations from is likely about 3 but definitely less than 10.

 

On the other hand, I can think of an example of a girl who is, in fact, a candidate to play on junior teams currently, and I assure you there aren't any barriers for her to participate on the team due to her sex. I'd even go so far as to say that 100% of the female players who legitimately deserved a place on a junior team in the past few years and went through all the steps to get on the team did not experience any of the problems you offered. Again, the sample size is two.

 

I don't understand why you say men "likely wouldn't partner" a female player. Do you have any evidence to support such a claim? I know the members of the junior team well enough to say with a very high degree of confidence that all of us would have no problem whatsoever playing with a female if she was good enough to deserve her shot to play on the team. I can assure you we have extensive discussions about what we consider our strongest lineups, and one's sex has never been brought into the discussion. If there is a girl who deserves to be on the team but isn't, then please point her out to us, because we simply didn't know she exists and she hasn't been coming to the trials.

 

Finally, I'll offer some insight about young women that is true of both bridge players and non-bridge players. Some of them enjoy drinking and sleeping around. Others don't. Bridge camp does not magically make women (or men) lose their morals. There is nothing "macho" about bridge camp, other than the fact that 95% of the participants are male. Do you also argue that college is not a good place to learn for serious students simply because some people on campus enjoy binge drinking?

 

Please excuse me for further derailing this thread.

[jdonn]

Adam, while I agree with your point that a girls' event might actually be good for bridge and encourage people to play, I have no idea where you're getting these harassment/disrespect/frat-atmosphere stories from, and I've been now to three reasonably major junior tournaments as well as a camp. I don't think the amount of partying and hooking up is any more (and in fact is probably less) than with any other activity where lots of teenagers are involved.

 

I don't often disagree with your points on organizational matters but I'm pretty sure that here you're stuck on some stories that just aren't true, at least in the recent years when I was around (and people will reasonably take them as personal attacks).

These were my thoughts almost exactly. I mean where are these tales coming from of not playing 'real' bridge when playing with a female even if she is better than the male? In what way is an environment with drinking conducive to males but not females? I just don't get what planet these observations came from.

[jonottawa]

If we're going to bend over backwards to get girls on the junior team, we should also bend over backwards to get boys whose parents aren't expert bridge players on the team, since they're just about as rare.

 

ACBL shouldn't be in the 'legislating morality' business. Surely the amount of sexism today is negligible among young people. I was something of a sexist pig in my youth and it was certainly frowned on then. I don't see how any junior male could look at what the Swedish girls have done or at Gavin/Jenny's history and conclude that girls can't play this game.

 

The best bridge prodigy I've ever seen played on BBO and is female. But she decided that throwing cardboard rectangles at a table probably wasn't the end-all and be-all (or even close) in life and never got actively involved in play at Nationals. Maybe there are fewer young female superstars because they have more sense than we do.

[Jlall]

one out of six is better than no girls at all. All of the players mentioned by you or me are recognized and respected as good players.

Good point, are you aware that USA also had a girl on our last World Junior Team? In fact, we had undoubtedly the best girl junior in the world on our team.

 

 

 

Do you think she was underestimated, or looked down upon, so she had any problems getting on the team? No, we voluntarily added her to the team when there were many good options available, and it was not even a close decision for us. In fact we decided to break up a partnership that had won 2 world junior teams already so that she could play more often.

 

Do you think we gave her a weak partner, in order to limit how often she could play? No, she played with one of the two players who would be playing all the boards.

 

Do you think she played the minimum amount of boards? No, she didn't, and she played more boards than a former 2 time world junior championship.

 

Do you think we lost faith in her as we were doing poorly? No, she played all of the final critical matches.

 

Do you think our captain was repeatedly sexually harassing her? No, he was gay!

 

Do you think that Jenny was ridiculed by her partner or teammates? Honestly I would say in the heat of battle that Jenny had more negative things to say about my game than vice versa. I think she and most people who were there could confirm that. And we have a rule on US junior teams that you can say nothing critical about your teammates play, and no one did about either of us as far as I know.

 

Do you think that Jenny was not invited to be on the junior team in Philadelphia? Of course she was, and we were going to try to get her to play every single board if she wanted to. This is because we know she is a great player, better than the other men on our team.

 

Unfortunately Jenny was unable to play the trials for our event due to her pregnancy. Yes, that's right, we have a trials. No problem, again we all voluntarily chose to add her to the team.

 

Jenny (and I) will not be on the junior team because it conflicts with the open and w omen's world championship (where Jenny no doubt will get a lot of money to play on someone's team, because she is so great), but she certainly was pushed very hard to play on it, and would undoubtedly have helped our team.

 

There was an event in Turkey recently where our trials was an online pairs qualifier (lol). The first thing I did was make sure Gavin and Jenny signed up. When Gavin said he couldn't, the second thing I did was ask Jenny to play. This is despite the fact that my other options included my best friend, Jeremy Fournier, or rising star Shane Blanchard who I currently live with and hang out with on a daily basis, or Roger Lee who I talk to every single day. If you think that I am biased against women based on this, I think that is ridiculous.

 

To say that we don't have one out of six women on our junior team like the other countries, or that that one out of six is not "recognized and respected" is simply false, as are the million other ignorant comments in this thread.

 

Show me one example of a good woman junior that has been turned away because people didn't want to be on a team with a girl. The USA junior program is about winning. We all want to win very badly. We'd rather have a better chance of winning than play on a team with a weak player.

 

When Ari and I were asked to join the junior team in Australia, we were picked over a player who had already won a gold medal with the 4 people involved, and a player who was extremely good friends with the 4 people. They were more experienced, more well liked, and definitely had hung out with those 4 guys a ton. We were picked anyways, because they thought we were better.

 

Friendship does not play a factor in who the best juniors choose to play on teams with. Race, sex, money, no factor like that plays a role. It's simply how good you are, and how good of a teammate you are.

 

But I really think if you think that a woman is LESS likely to be able to partner or play on teams with the top juniors than a man of equal skill level, you are really out of touch with reality. No, I'm not implying that the woman would be having sex with the boys. I know this will come as a shock to you, but young men like to simply interact with girls more than they do with guys, especially when it comes to bridge where young women who play are rare. This is especially true of young guys who are bridge players, most of whom are completely socially awkward.

 

I mean, sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but the cool kids aren't all swarming to play a card game with old people all the time. Most people who take up the game are likely to be nerdy and awkward. They are not likely to be the most popular kid at school who has tons of things to do, an active social life, and plays outdoor sports. As such, the kids who start to play bridge are generally terrible with girls, and don't know how to interact with them. When there is a girl who plays bridge, these guys are typically excited that they have common ground with a girl to talk about. It is a completely standard part of an awkward teenager's life to want to interact with girls, even if they are not having sex, and have no chance of having sex.

 

Why would anyone think that top guy players would want to play on a team with a bad player who is a guy? If you're bad and want to improve, your best chance is being a girl ainec.

 

And if the girl is actually good, there is just no chance she's going to be discriminated against off the junior team. Jenny is the one example of a junior woman who is good in USA in recent times, and she has certainly been treated fairly by the program. If you disagree with this, please give me a counterexample of a woman who was good enough to be on the team, but did not make it.

 

Of course it is a problem for the game that few young women reach the level necessary to be on the USA junior team. But to blame this on "drinking" and "sex" and "people underestimating them" is terrible. How about this:

 

1) Far less women start playing bridge than men before they know anything about the environment at bridge tournaments. This is because:

 

1a) Society does not encourage them to spend ridiculous amounts of time on games which can be considered ok for a young boy. See chess, backgammon, poker, video games, where young men also start playing far more often than young women. Bridge is not unique as a game that many more men begin to play than women.

 

1b) Women are more social than men. This is true of young ones and old ones alike. Well, bridge is an anti-social game where the people are incredibly nasty, and there are very few young players. You sit inside and you barely speak for hours. Women are less likely to want to start doing such a thing.

 

1c) There are less socially awkward women than socially awkward men. Again, it is the socially awkward who are generally attracted to bridge.

 

OK, so we already have many many many less girls playing bridge than boys. This alone will mean that there are many many many less girls who reach the elite level. But we have even more factors for why a boy who starts playing bridge is more likely to reach an elite level than a girl.

 

2) Society encourages boys to be hyper competitive, win at all costs, from a young age. They do not encourage girls to do the same. This means boys are more likely to dedicate the enormous time necessary to reach the highest level

 

3) Women are generally more well rounded than men. I am not sure if this is an environmental or biological thing, possibly both. The point being, women are less likely to become obsessed with a stupid game that has no financial gain than men.

 

At the end of the day, it simply takes a lot of time and a lot of hard work to become a great bridge player. Putting in that amount of time at a young age means you lose out on a lot of areas in your life. I literally couldn't take drivers ed for 2 years because I was going to a sectional every weekend. That's right, I chose NOT TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE over missing 4 sectionals so I could take drivers ed. That is not normal behavior for a 16 year old. I skipped a lot of parties in HS so I could go play bridge. My girlfriend dumped me because I spent more time on bridge than her. Instead of trying to go on spring break to Mexico, I would hope to go to the spring nationals. Instead of doing homework, I played OKbridge.

 

I am not complaining, but I am saying that I think for a variety of reasons, a boy is far more likely to do this than a girl.

 

However, when a girl does show talent, she is IMO encouraged FAR more than a guy would be who showed an equal amount of talent. From my own personal experience, Meredith Beck and I were coming up at the same time. At the very beginning I was much better than her and had far more achievements than her, but she was the one who got almost all of the attention when she was becoming a life master. She was, afterall, the youngest woman life master ever. The reason she got more attention was because she was a more special case than me, there are far fewer young women playing bridge well than men, and encouraging/promoting/advertising one who is is important for the game.

 

But the fact remains if she was a man, she would have got less attention than she got as a woman. I have no problem with this system, but it is pro-woman, not anti-woman.

 

To say that someone like Meredith was DISCOURAGED from playing bridge by the general public is absolutely ridiculous. The fact is, girls like Meredith just don't start playing very often. This is not because of how they are treated at bridge tournaments, it is completely societal. There are no women video gaming stars either.

 

The argument that women are discouraged from junior bridge tournaments because there is drinking and sex is absurd to me. Shockingly, young women also like drinking and having sex. I mean who do you think the guys are having sex with? I'm sure some women don't like being showered with attention and hit on, and some do. Unfortunately, this is a fact of life when you are a young woman, awkward guys are going to try to talk to you. If this is a problem in your opinion, then you can blame that on our culture and society. You cannot actually think that this will only occur at a bridge tournament.

 

The fact is that drinking is a social thing that happens when young people get together. It happens in college, it happens at tournaments, it happens everywhere. Nobody is forced to drink at bridge tournaments, but most end up doing so. There is a reason for that. If you honestly think that drinking is discouraging to girls, I honestly think that you are sexist yourself.

 

Let me ask you something, what do you think is an effective sales pitch to a girl (or guy) who has never played bridge who is considering going to a junior camp.

 

A) "Omg you should totally come to junior camp, there are bridge classes during the day which are fun, and the rest of the time is just good times drinking with cool people and having some adventures. It is totally chill and laid back, and you'll have an awesome time"

 

B ) "You know, bridge is the most exciting card game in the world. It teaches communication, partnership, logic, and keeps your mind sharp when you're old. You can learn it in a safe and friendly environment by going to junior camp! Don't worry, everyone takes it seriously and there is no drinking."

 

If you think it is B you are naive, and out of touch with what appeals to young people. Every girl who ever went to junior camp who hadn't played bridge before was there for A. Yes that's right, girls who wanted to drink and have fun! Of course, we hope that these people will learn B for themselves, and ultimately that's what will keep them coming back to the game, but that is not what will get someone to go to the junior camp before they even know anything about bridge.

 

Do people have sex? Omg, yes! It is not rape, so presumably the girls and the guys BOTH want to do that sometimes. This is part of life as a young person. Get over it. The possibility of having sex does not deter young women from going to junior tournaments.

 

As far as serious junior tournaments like the world junior teams, have you ever been to one? Drinking is extremely frowned upon by the players and coaches. Trust me, I know, I have been lectured by teammates and coaches many times for drinking during a tournament. In these things, everyone is there to WIN, and drinking does not help you win. Your teammates DO look down upon you if you drink during the tournament. I can honestly say in Turkey that no one on any of the american teams drank until the teams were over. If you are going to talk about what goes on at junior tournaments, it would help to go to one first.

 

Believe it or not there are some people bitter at the opportunities young juniors have when they weren't able to have them themselves, and they say disparaging things about the junior program, even if they aren't true.

 

For instance one might see Justin Lall drunk at a national and start saying "omg all the juniors do is drink, they are alcoholics. All people do at these junior tournaments is party." This is not a logical conclusion to draw, but unfortunately some people want to jump to conclusions and spread rumors, because of said bitterness.

 

What about invitational tournaments, like the one in the Netherlands? I played it in once, and our team had 2 women on it. Do you think they were discriminated against? Of course not, if anything, they were more likely to be invited because they were women, because it is good for the game to encourage young women to play, and for young women to be on the teams.

 

Is it possible that some woman at some time has been harassed in the junior program? Certainly. It probably happens LESS frequently than the odds of a woman going to a random place and being harassed though. Unfortunately it is a problem with our society that sometimes young women get harassed. To insinuate that this happens more often in the junior program than on the street is simply misguided. I hope that all women speak up if a member of the junior program harasses them, so that that person can be fired or punished. As far as I know, no one who works in the junior program has been fired for this reason.

 

If you have been spreading ignorant lies or hearsay in this thread, it would be nice if you stopped.