bridge is cool?

[Guest Jlall]

bridge is cool? I think not...

 

www.bridgeiscool.com

 

thoughts?

[Free]

'redisover' is a typo :D

[uday]

It is a new initiative by the ACBL. I remember reading about it while @ Atlanta; I believe the site has only been up for a week or so.

[Al_U_Card]

When I see my step-daughter spending hours per day on her "Hilary Duff" website, blog, fanzine, etc. etc. it seems to me that any way of getting our kids to exercise their minds (at least) is a great idea.

 

The site (typos notwithstanding, how do you "rediscover" something new?) is rightfully aimed at someone who is a total newbie to the game.

 

If every bridge player tried to introduce the game to one new person every year (young or old) THAT would be something! This is a good way to steer kids to a virtually reasonable source of bridge info.

[scoob]

www.bridgeiscool.com isn't working for me ;)

[Guest Jlall]

me neither...must be getting too much traffic ;)

[pclayton]

So apparently www.bridgeiswhack.com, www.bridgeisrad.com, and www.nonbridgeplayersblow.com were taken I guess.

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps if it proposed bridge as way to learn an activity where you could "smoke" your parents and other adults after a few short weeks of practice........ :P

[pigpenz]

maybe it isnt cool anymore?

[Guest Jlall]

they just need to put some good looking women on there, as well as some cash prizes (like show the cavendish) lol. thats whats cool these days... outtie dawgs

[Winstonm]

they just need to put some good looking women on there, as well as some cash prizes (like show the cavendish) lol. thats whats cool these days... outtie dawgs

The key is to get teenage girls to play.....where teenage girls gather teenage boys are not far behind....right Justin?

 

Winston

[Elianna]

they just need to put some good looking women on there, as well as some cash prizes (like show the cavendish) lol. thats whats cool these days... outtie dawgs

The key is to get teenage girls to play.....where teenage girls gather teenage boys are not far behind....right Justin?

 

Winston

ACBL, as they are running their program now, will have a very hard time to get teenage/college age girls/women to want to play competitively or join their junior program. The reason I say this: Experience of how I was treated by many juniors (not all, and not all people involved in the junior program).

 

Some of my experience:

 

1) Many comments about how junior girls are no good at bridge. They were not necessarily made AT me to discourage, but when people talk amongst each other freely and openly to each other when I'm right there, made me realize that no matter how good I am (and it's not like I'm top class, but who doesn't hope that they can be) I would never be able to get them to realize that I'm good. And that seemed to be based solely on the fact that I was a girl. I saw a lot of male juniors that I was better than, that were MUCH more respected as bridge players than I was, solely because they fit in better with others.

 

2) Conversations with adults (40+ years) involved in the junior program that involved said adult (male) conversing with my chest. Or so it seemed from where his line of sight was aimed.

 

3) "Lessons" (no, not structured ones conducted at camp, but ad hoc ones) about what kind of games (imps vs. mps) the junior boys need to have sex before, and how we (junior girls) need to know about this and accomodate it.

 

I'm not saying that every junior girl has experienced this, I'm writing from my own experience, what has happened around me in the junior program.

 

I've had some good experience with people. Charlotte Blaiss has been particularly helpful.

 

There have also been a lot junior boys who have behaved more like people than hormones on parade, and they know who they are (I hope!).

 

I didn't write this post to say how bad the male sex was, but I just believe that the US junior program was not helpful in my bridge career, and I get annoyed when I get comments at tournaments from little old ladies about how they're so greatful that the junior program has kept bridge alive among my generation.

 

I hope that with this website and other measures, the junior program steps up it's game, lives up to it's potential, and aids more juniors than they have in the past.

[Walddk]

1) Many comments about how junior girls are no good at bridge.  They were not necessarily made AT me to discourage, but when people talk amongst each other freely and openly to each other when I'm right there, made me realize that no matter how good I am (and it's not like I'm top class, but who doesn't hope that they can be) I would never be able to get them to realize that I'm good.  And that seemed to be based solely on the fact that I was a girl.  I saw a lot of male juniors that I was better than, that were MUCH more respected as bridge players than I was, solely because they fit in better with others.

All your points are valid, Elianna, not least #1 which I have quoted here. Let's face it, women and men, girls and boys are not regarded as equals from a man's point of view in a mind game where nothing relates to physical endurance. It's like that in USA I understand, and it's not different in Europe I am sorry to say. I am convinced that it's even a worldwide problem.

 

We don't have to go very far in order to see that this is a fact from a bridge politician's point of view too. Why else would there be leagues, series, sections and championships for women? Why can't they compete against everyone when bridge has nothing to do with running faster, throwing longer or lifting more weights?

 

The answer is of course that among the vast majority of men, women are not capable of competing with men, at least not at the highest levels (world championships, Olympics and the like). To be fair, very few women are, but that is not due to the fact that they can't become as good as men, but simply a matter of our social pattern.

 

Women are "supposed to" take care of all the time consuming issues away from the table: house, children, shopping, etc., so that leaves them less time to concentrate on bridge. In the meantime many men have all the time in the world to focus on bridge, to travel to the end of the world and compete against the very best while wives, partners and girlfriends are left behind to deal with all the practical matters concerning the family.

 

My view is that it's bad, almost degrading, that we have separate competitions for women. Dump the leagues, series and championships for women and let them compete among the best men. Because only by doing so will the women get the chance to improve their bridge. Competing against equals and especially lesser players doesn't do you any good, but competing against better players does.

 

This thread could easily develop into a debate about men versus women at the bridge table, but that's not bad. Because only if we talk and write about it, do we get the chance to impress the politicians and make them change "status qvo". I think that most women want that change, but I can't be certain.

 

What is your view?

 

Roland

[shoeless]

1. My view is that it's bad, almost degrading, that we have separate competitions for women.

 

2. Dump the leagues, series and championships for women and let them compete among the best men. Because only by doing so will the women get the chance to improve their bridge. Competing against equals and especially lesser players doesn't do you any good, but competing against better players does.

I will agree with you Roland that other than the culture issues that present obsacles - women are quite capable of competing with men in bridge. Take a look at the last couple of NEC results as an example. It may well be that the old boys club in bridge supports and sustains women's events to protect their club from further invasion. Or it might just simply be as you suggest that men believe that women can't compete equally with men in bridge. On the other hand one might argue that providing women's events is a recognition of the inequity in cultural opportunity for a large percentage of women to compete at a high level and the maintenance of these events is an attmept not to lose a showcase for talented women players and to continue to encourage women to be involved in high level bridge against some pretty strong odds given the world we live in. Aree these events degrading to women? Well guess that depends on the motive for them - could be. But I would ask the women that populate these events if they feel degraded.

 

Clearly if the bridge poiticians dissolved women's events, it would be a powerful recognition of the potential equality of the genders in the world of bridge. I would be interested to hear someone from the WBF's Women in Bridge Committee on this topic. I personally waffle on the issue - think I need more information.

 

Where I do take exception is when you say that "only by dumping women's events, will women get the chance to improve their bridge." Balderdash. Only when men can have babies and nurture their families with the same genetic imprint as women, and society changes its mores to reflect that, will we have a level playing field. But in the meantime - women can improve their game regardless of the bridge playing structure that is out there. Dumping these events isn't going to change the barriers they face. But can they do it as things are today? Damn right they can. It's a matter of choice - are the sacrifices that come with the choice worth it? Only the individual knows for sure.

[Finch]

2) Conversations with adults (40+ years) involved in the junior program that involved said adult (male) conversing with my chest. Or so it seemed from where his line of sight was aimed.

Ohhhh yes. And seeing someone being "kibbitzed" by a member of the selection committee who spent the entire 3 hours looking down her cleavage.

 

And at the banquet at the end of the Junior Camrose (the England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales matches) in which I was (possibly) the first woman to play for England Juniors - or certainly the first for a number of years - hearing the NPC give a speech explaining that England won because we had the "best legs".

 

There are some advantages, they are just a bit more subtle. Because people believe female juniors can't play bridge, you can get some excellent results. I vividly remember the first time I played against Tony Forrester (in a friendly match) when he went off in a slam because he didn't believe that some random student playing with her boyfriend could possibly have falsecarded...

 

Personally I don't play women's bridge. I play "mixed" events because I can play in them with my regular partner and (at least in theory) we have a better chance of doing well in them, but I wouldn't object if they disappeared.

[mike777]

2) Conversations with adults (40+ years) involved in the junior program that involved said adult (male) conversing with my chest.  Or so it seemed from where his line of sight was aimed.

Ohhhh yes. And seeing someone being "kibbitzed" by a member of the selection committee who spent the entire 3 hours looking down her cleavage.

 

And at the banquet at the end of the Junior Camrose (the England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales matches) in which I was (possibly) the first woman to play for England Juniors - or certainly the first for a number of years - hearing the NPC give a speech explaining that England won because we had the "best legs".

 

There are some advantages, they are just a bit more subtle. Because people believe female juniors can't play bridge, you can get some excellent results. I vividly remember the first time I played against Tony Forrester (in a friendly match) when he went off in a slam because he didn't believe that some random student playing with her boyfriend could possibly have falsecarded...

 

Personally I don't play women's bridge. I play "mixed" events because I can play in them with my regular partner and (at least in theory) we have a better chance of doing well in them, but I wouldn't object if they disappeared.

Congrats on your fine showing at Tenerife. I am reading the write up on you in my British Bridge Mag now.

 

Nothing about legs or breasts but had these 2 comments:

1) Only 23 Women's teams , a disappointing number to be sure......

2) Women's pairs was won by a Sub pair that had not made it into the Finals.

 

 

btw 2 page write up on the Scandal, nothing new in the report.

[Al_U_Card]

I guess we need a "Turing test" where a hidden human plays and we have to guess whether it is a man or a woman?

 

Sadly, we men are notoriously arrogant, aggressive and condescending and these are some of our better traits.... :) .

 

To all the women bridge players, remember the words of that famous bridge philosopher "What doesn't kill me, only makes me stronger." and beat the crap out of the next guy (at the bridge table) who treats you with any less dignity than your humanity deserves. :)

[ArcLight]

Womens Bridge vs Mens Bridge.

 

I've read that due to genetic differences given a large population base men do better at some tasks, such as three dimensional spatial object ratiations and perhaps math. Thats not to say all men are better than women, just that on average the men tend to do better in that task. And studies show that women think differently or excel in other tasks. This doesn't mean the female mathematicians aren't as good, it just helps to explain why there may be fewer than men. (there can also be societal influences I wont go into)

 

What about Bridge? Assuming men may have some genetic advantage with respect to math, does that carry over to Bridge? Bridge math is pretty simple. Memory (counting) is valuable. Are men better at that than women?

Logic and deductive reasoning, are men better on average (over a large population base) than women?

 

One of the things that makes a player better is being able to commit a great deal of time to the game. Both through play (to gain experience and skill) and through time spent working on the partnership (practicing bidding, working on system, etc)

Women tend to have more family obligations so they in general have less time for games. Also, perhaps women tend to be more socially oriented than men and less willing to spend 10 hours a day, 6 days a week playing Bridge. (In World Class by Marc Smith Michael Rosenberg said thats how he started).

 

Do men have a genetic advantage?

Or is it more a matter of dedicating a huge amount of time to the game?

 

Do men have better access to mentors? It seems some of the wives of the top male players are also very strong. Were they strong players before, or did having the constant mentoring by their husbands make the difference?

 

Are men in general wealtheir than women, and more able to take lessons, and have access to better training?

 

Perhaps the societal influences are more important than the genetic differences.

 

(Dorothy Hayden is my favorite female palyer. For her books, ethics, and attitude)

[Guest Jlall]

Some of my experience:

 

1) Many comments about how junior girls are no good at bridge. They were not necessarily made AT me to discourage, but when people talk amongst each other freely and openly to each other when I'm right there, made me realize that no matter how good I am (and it's not like I'm top class, but who doesn't hope that they can be) I would never be able to get them to realize that I'm good. And that seemed to be based solely on the fact that I was a girl. I saw a lot of male juniors that I was better than, that were MUCH more respected as bridge players than I was, solely because they fit in better with others.

 

2) Conversations with adults (40+ years) involved in the junior program that involved said adult (male) conversing with my chest. Or so it seemed from where his line of sight was aimed.

 

3) "Lessons" (no, not structured ones conducted at camp, but ad hoc ones) about what kind of games (imps vs. mps) the junior boys need to have sex before, and how we (junior girls) need to know about this and accomodate it.

some comments:

 

I really don't agree with 1. Look at Sabine Auken and Jill Myers. Both are respected as top bridge players, not top women players. I have nothing but respect for them, and their results. That is what it all comes down to, results. If anyone, male or female, starts winning a bunch of things they will get respect. It may be harder or slower for women (as bridge society is today) but it will come. People cannot judge relative skill (if it isnt obvious) without playing hundreds of boards personally against the other people. This is usually not the case, so all people have to go on is results. Perhaps these male juniors that are more respected than you have just got better results? I am a male junior, and personally I do not know of anything that you have won. I'm not saying you are not a good player, I'm just giving you the perception of an outsider.

 

As for number 2, I doubt you find this exclusive of bridge players. As I'm sure you know, there will be some men in all areas of life like this.

 

As for 3, that's awful and illegal (sexual harassment). Not sure what kinda people say stuff like that.

[Finch]

Womens Bridge vs Mens Bridge.

 

I've read that due to genetic differences given a large population base men do better at some tasks, such as three dimensional spatial object ratiations and perhaps math. Thats not to say all men are better than women, just that on average the men tend to do better in that task. And studies show that women think differently or excel in other tasks. This doesn't mean the female mathematicians aren't as good, it just helps to explain why there may be fewer than men. (there can also be societal influences I wont go into)

I don't think that's entirely true, or at least not all of the story.

 

My understanding is that for any particular ability (playing chess, doing crosswords, being good at mathematics...), when you look at the range - usually a normal distribution - you find that the men tend to have a higher standard deviation than the women. So at both extremes you get more men than women. Assuming bridge ability is similar, you'd expect the majority of the world's 200 best players (say) to be men.

 

That being so, there are some true statements and some false statements.

 

- That player is world class. They are more likely to be male than female. True.

- That player is female. Therefore they can't be world class. False.

 

I'm not at all certain the mean is different (it could be, I really don't know). It may be the case that more women than men play "just for fun" so you get a lot of not-very-good women playing, and rather fewer not-very-good men. That would lead the average bridge-playing man being better than the average bridge-playing woman, even if the "intrinsic" population average ability is the same for both. Certainly my local club has more women than men, but I don't see a noticeable difference in standard between them.

 

I think there are two important things to avoid.

 

One is to assume that women (or girls, as we started on juniors) won't be any good, just because they are girls. Yes, it's less likely they'll be world class material. But if they are top of their class in maths and about to become a currency trader it's (IMO) quite likely they'll be better at bridge than the boy who thinks lottery tickets are a good investment.

 

The other is to think only about the best. Bridge can be enjoyed by everybody, not only the top players. So it doesn't matter than someone may never win the Bermuda Bowl. They should still be encouraged to try it out and see if they have fun. The current social reality is that in many countries women have more spare time than men do, so we should be encouraging women to use that time for something more rewarding than watching daytime TV. What's more, if you are encouraging schoolchildren to play it may be easier to get girls involved first than boys.

 

p.s. bridge & mathematics: here are some female English bridge players - Sandra Landy, Margaret Courtney/James, Cath Jagger, Abbey Walker, me - guess what they all read at university?

 

p.p.s virtually every female bridge player I know who has a male partner, met their partner playing bridge. It doesn't seem to work the other way round.

[Walddk]

I really don't agree with 1. Look at Sabine Auken and Jill Myers. Both are respected as top bridge players, not top women players. I have nothing but respect for them, and their results. That is what it all comes down to, results.

Indeed Justin, and I respect those two for being as good as the best men. How many more would (perhaps) make it to any of the Top 10 "Open" teams in the world? A rhetorical question, since it's a fact that no woman is on any "Open" team at the very top.

 

May I remind you that even Sabine Auken-Daniela von Arnim, arguably the best woman pair in the world, have not yet been able to qualify for the German "Open" team although they have tried on several occasions. Germany are not even among the world's Top 15.

 

They achieved their results in the women's championships (as did virtually all other women), so the real problem is that there is a huge gap between "Open" and "Women". That's a fact nobody can deny, and whether that will change or not remains to be seen. I doubt it, although I can't see any logical explanation as to why one shouldn't try to accomplish this - if the women want it, that is.

 

By the way. You pick your best 10 women's teams, and I pick the 10 best men's. Feel free to pick more teams from the same nation, and I select one from 10 different countries. We seed them and let 1 play against 1, 2 against 2 and so on over say 96 boards. How many of those matches will be won by the women?

 

My answer is hidden.

 

 

None

 

 

Roland

[Finch]

May I remind you that even Sabine Auken-Daniela von Arnim, arguably the best woman pair in the world, have not yet been able to qualify for the German "Open" team although they have tried on several occasions. Germany are not even among the world's Top 15.

 

They achieved their results in the women's championships (as did virtually all other women), so the real problem is that there is a huge gap between "Open" and "Women". That's a fact nobody can deny, and whether that will change or not remains to be seen.

I don't deny it. But I would guess (note the word guess) that Auken/von Arnim would do better in Open bridge if they stopped playing women's bridge.

 

As my husband puts it "women's bridge is a different game". I can only talk about English players with any depth of knowledge, but in general when women do well in Open events it's playing in a well-established Open partnership. Michelle Brunner recently won both the Pairs & the Teams at a big Australian event (Gold Coast congress?) playing with John Holland. John is a certainly good player, but I don't think he's in a different class to Michelle. I think it's more that they haven't been afflicted by the absurdities of women's bridge.

[Al_U_Card]

Stereotypes are like preconceived notions and inferences at the table, you make, have or take them at your own risk. Always remember that PEOPLE play bridge, their orientations, dispositions and gender are secondary issues.

[hrothgar]

May I remind you that even Sabine Auken-Daniela von Arnim, arguably the best woman pair in the world, have not yet been able to qualify for the German "Open" team although they have tried on several occasions. Germany are not even among the world's Top 15.

What are the selection criteria for the German Open team?

[Walddk]

May I remind you that even Sabine Auken-Daniela von Arnim, arguably the best woman pair in the world, have not yet been able to qualify for the German "Open" team although they have tried on several occasions. Germany are not even among the world's Top 15.

What are the selection criteria for the German Open team?

They team up with any pair(s) they like and compete in trials. On those occasions Sabine and Daniela have had strong team-mates (men), but they have failed to qualify although they were close last year.

 

Sabine and Daniela play in the "Open" German Premier League (as the only woman pair as far as I recall), but then again: there is no woman league in Germany. They exist in many other European countries.

 

Roland