bridge is cool?

[keylime]

This is maddening.

 

First, the website is frankly a '70's styled attempt at cheesy marketing. Yellow as the background color? I didn't order eggs with my breakfast this morning! And they are paying enough money to misspell rediscover? Someone hand me some Aleve please.

 

That leads to even more of a problem. Elianna's comments are so factual it's sickening. When I entered the junior program (albeit late at age 23) the slant of the ACBL was to not grow up new talent but to coddle the at the time current juniors' whims and wishes. At the Las Vegas National in 2001 they had a pizza party - I was looking forward to it, until I saw the group. Only 2 girls, and the guys for the most part were there to be there and not to contribute or inspire the lesser known/newer players. It was a total sham.

 

Furthermore, anytime a youngish woman who is attractive sits down at the table, frankly the stirring begins. I've seen it happen in Tampa and in Vancouver, and it bothers me GREATLY that we are solely concerned (we being men) with gaining favor with the said lady instead of drawing others like her into the game. Some of the things I've seen revolving this topic, has caused needless grief. Guys, we really need to do better. I'd say stronger language but this is a public forum and gotta keep it G-rated. Just know that I'm not real happy about how we address the ladies.

 

Lastly, women's bridge is a different game. It's different tho for reasons that aren't exactly "kosher".

 

Speaking of which, I'm going to go play bridge today (Friday) with an attractive woman. She'll only get the highest quality bridge I can offer and NOT a staredown.

[Walddk]

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.

I agree, but they need to qualify for the Open team first. They haven't been able to yet.

 

They won't have to qualify for the women's team. They are exempts, so they always have two chances to play internationally if they wish.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

Furthermore, anytime a youngish woman who is attractive sits down at the table, frankly the stirring begins.

Is this not a societal issue rather than a "junior program" issue? Attractive young women get this at SCHOOl as well. To be blunt, young men when they see a new attractive young face automatically get sexual thoughts initially. Most act appropriately and keep this to them selves, some make it more evident. However, once you do get to know the person you get to see them as just that, a person, rather than a sexual being. This is how society works. I am friends with several good looking female junior players who I now know and respect, but I will confess my first thoughts upon meeting them were not so innocent. IMO, that is life today. Flame away.

[awm]

It strikes me that relatively few juniors have "won something" especially outside the realm of junior bridge. But let me give an example for those familiar with the US junior players of how women are regarded differently.

 

A few years ago, a team of juniors including three women qualified to be USA1. This was admittedly in part because a number of the "top" US juniors were having issues at the time (I have on good authority that one was extremely sick and another was drunk) but it was still quite an accomplishment. The team included: Meredith Beck, Lisa Burton, Lindsay Pearlman, Xing Yuan, Robert Glickman, and Joon Pahk.

 

This team didn't do well in international competition. Of course, some of this may be that they were never taken seriously from day one, and it's hard to do well when even your own coaches think you are bad. But I'll accept that these folks are not as good as the victorious USA1 from Australia. Also, none of these players have particular records in other events (whereas many of the members of USA1 have done things in open events, most particulary John Hurd and Joel Wooldridge).

 

The point I find more interesting, is that the vast majority of juniors would not consider the three women on this team to be comparable players to, say, Tim Crank, Andy Hurd, Noble Shore, Charlie Garrod, or the Rice brothers -- USA2. A team which didn't honestly do much better in international competition. In addition, Joon Pahk and Rob Glickman were seriously considered for USA2 the last time around, whereas the three women were not.

 

One thing that most of the best bridge players have in common is starting young. If the young girls who want to play are not treated as though they have potential, and given the same opportunities as the young boys... is it any surprise that there are more men at the top levels of the game than women?

[Al_U_Card]

but I will confess my first thoughts upon meeting them were not so innocent. IMO, that is life today. Flame away.

Honesty is a prerequisite for being a good person.

If you hadn't had those feeling you would not have been "normal" or healthy. Intelligence supercedes all other domains in the human realm and the time it takes to produce the correct action is a direct indicator of its level.

[Elianna]

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.

I don't really know how you can disagree with 1) (and I'm not sure that you actually do).

 

I wasn't saying that there aren't women respected as bridge players. I was saying that people involved in the junior bridge program (and this was more the juniors than the "adults", I will admit) talked like this amongst themselves a lot around me when I first started participating in the junior program (a year or so ago, I've been playing bridge for much longer than that).

 

As for the respect for me part: I realize that some of it is based on results, and I completely understand that. See Adam's message. I wasn't talking about the very best juniors (you, Joel, etc), I'm talking about lower levels of juniordom.

 

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.

Yes, but not as instructors, etc. of young women.

 

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

I didn't know that sexual harassment out of the work place was illegal. Nice to know that.

 

I'm also sorry that my post started a women vs. men debate, because I really don't think that is relavent to what came before me: How to get more young people to play bridge, and what the ACBL is doing about that.

 

My main point is that unless female juniors are treated better than I was (encouraged, told by people in the program that they can get better, and not treated as if they are there for the males, etc) then I don't really think that a junior program will be extremely successful at getting girls to play bridge.

[Elianna]

Furthermore, anytime a youngish woman who is attractive sits down at the table, frankly the stirring begins.

Is this not a societal issue rather than a "junior program" issue? Attractive young women get this at SCHOOl as well. To be blunt, young men when they see a new attractive young face automatically get sexual thoughts initially. Most act appropriately and keep this to them selves, some make it more evident. However, once you do get to know the person you get to see them as just that, a person, rather than a sexual being. This is how society works. I am friends with several good looking female junior players who I now know and respect, but I will confess my first thoughts upon meeting them were not so innocent. IMO, that is life today. Flame away.

Justin, the difference is that a high school teacher that looks down his students shirts when he talks to them will be removed, because his school would not tolerate that.

 

It is quite different being hit on by someone in your class in high school or college, then by the professor.

 

I think that it says something about an institution that it believes that smoking pot (a reason I was told that someone was not allowed to be an instructor at camp) disqualifies someone for being around young people, and that hitting on teenage girls does not disqualify you for that position.

[Finch]

My main point is that unless female juniors are treated better than I was (encouraged, told by people in the program that they can get better, and not treated as if they are there for the males, etc) then I don't really think that a junior program will be extremely successful at getting girls to play bridge.

I do think that's a pity.

 

When I first started playing bridge seriously I was invited to join the Junior squad rather than the ladies as it would be "better for my bridge". I'm pretty certain they were right.

 

I was never treated badly by other juniors, although it may have helped that many of the squad were already friends/teammates. It's the more senior people (such as the one who made a pass at me) who were not best behaved.

[Guest Jlall]

my response was to keylimes post which was directed at how junior men players treat junior women players. I was not talking about anybody else. that is why i quoted keylimes post.

 

There are seperate issues here:

 

1) you said you feel you will never be respected as a good player no matter how good you get. I believe this is false as there are several women players respected as top players.

 

2) keylime feels that good looking women are discouraged from the game because when junior male players first meet them they have thoughts other than how she plays bridge. I think this is a societal issue and most attractive women get it everywhere, school being an example.

 

3) you (and adam) feel that junior women players right now are not respected as good players. I feel that this is because, in the USA, there are no junior women players that are expert players. Adam, just so you know, the USA 2 team this year was treated with similar disrespect and low opinions as the team with the 3 women was in Paris. They had similar results as well. If any player wants respect as a player, they need to do well in something major. With all due respect, I do not think winning the junior trials counts (in USA) as it is a completely random event as you know. I do believe if any junior woman player were to make the round of 16 in the spingold, make the top 20 of the blue ribbons, etc they would get respect.

 

4) you feel that the male leaders of the junior orginazation (adults) act inappropriately. I'll take your word on this, and what they're doing is wrong.

 

5) you feel the junior program has not benefited you. Fine, but I'm sure people like Lisa Burton and Meredith Beck would feel like it HAS benefited them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[han]

To be blunt, young men when they see a new attractive young face automatically get sexual thoughts initially. Most act appropriately and keep this to them selves, some make it more evident. However, once you do get to know the person you get to see them as just that, a person, rather than a sexual being. This is how society works. I am friends with several good looking female junior players who I now know and respect, but I will confess my first thoughts upon meeting them were not so innocent. IMO, that is life today. Flame away.

My experiences are somewhat different than yours. I have often played with a quite attractive young (~mid 20's) woman on my team. I have never noticed any inappropriate behavior from younger men towards her. However, she get's a LOT of attention from men of 50 years and older. Sometimes this is just "innocent" flattering, sometimes it is quite annoying.

 

One of the nicer aspects of the attention she receives is that a well known bridge player has asked her to play bridge with him sometime, and they have. I believe that the pro made no inappropriate comments while playing bridge.

[pclayton]

Well......

 

Going back to some of the earlier comments:

 

I don't think Women's events denigrate Women's bridge. This is strictly a matter of choice for the members of any sponsoring organization. As long as "Men's" vs "Women's" events are abolished and "Open" vs "everyone else that wants to have a restricted event: Seniors, Women, Juniors, MP under "x", Teams from Saskachewan, etc.." I'm OK with that.

 

I spoke to a highly ranked woman player a few years at Las Vegas. She spoke of her National Women's wins like they were no big deal. To me thats a shame - winning any type of National Event to me is a big deal, especially when you've done it multiple times, or in her case, had done it three or four years running.

 

If a gal wants to step out of the Women's events like Jill Meyers or Kay Schulle and compete in Open pair and team events, then "you go girl"! If they want to play in the Wagar or the WLMP, then thats fine too.

[Guest Jlall]

or in her case, had done it three or four years running.

well that narrows it down to 2 people :)

[mike777]

To be blunt, young men when they see a new attractive young face automatically get sexual thoughts initially. Most act appropriately and keep this to them selves, some make it more evident. However, once you do get to know the person you get to see them as just that, a person, rather than a sexual being. This is how society works. I am friends with several good looking female junior players who I now know and respect, but I will confess my first thoughts upon meeting them were not so innocent. IMO, that is life today. Flame away.

My experiences are somewhat different than yours. I have often played with a quite attractive young (~mid 20's) woman on my team. I have never noticed any inappropriate behavior from younger men towards her. However, she get's a LOT of attention from men of 50 years and older. Sometimes this is just "innocent" flattering, sometimes it is quite annoying.

 

One of the nicer aspects of the attention she receives is that a well known bridge player has asked her to play bridge with him sometime, and they have. I believe that the pro made no inappropriate comments while playing bridge.

Does this mean you do not often play with unattractive young Women?

 

I think you made some point here :).

[arrows]

I guess bridge is one of the sports with least sex discrimination.

Because the formats are categoried by "OPEN" and "WOMAN". Not "Man's" and

"Woman's", as almost every other sports do.

[Walddk]

I guess bridge is one of the sports with least sex discrimination.

Because the formats are categoried by "OPEN" and "WOMAN". Not "Man's" and

"Woman's", as almost every other sports do.

Which in fact is a discrimination, is it not? Againt men, that is. Women can play in the Open, whereas men can't play in the women's.

 

Roland

[candybar]

I guess bridge is one of the sports with least sex discrimination.

Because the formats are categoried by "OPEN" and "WOMAN". Not "Man's" and

"Woman's", as almost every other sports do.

Do you have any idea how many YEARS of trying it took to change the Men's events to Open? Don't forget, a whole generation of women has been working to improve this mess for many years now, and while it's gotten a little better, there is still a long way to go.

[Double !]

Is Bridge cool? Cool to whom?

 

Some thoughts from the Peanut Gallery:

 

This discussion about males, females and bridge ability needs to be discussed and kept out of the closet because it has persisted for at least 40 years (the length of time since I began playing bridge) and, probably, much longer. Let me preface this by stating that I strongly take exception to any premise stating or suggesting that females are less capable of playing this game than males. I have had my arse kicked viciously and competently by many women bridge players over the years. I do not believe any differences between male and female players to be due to factors such as cognition, potential, learning styles (if such things truly exist in most cases), or genetics. Yet, there is a long history of males reportedly having more success at top-level competition and in bridge-related literature. "Why" is a question very much deserving of further examination.

 

I just quickly looked throught a classic bridge book written by Fred L. Karpin (copyright 1968) titled "Winning Play in Tournament and Duplicate Bridge", and added up the number of famous/ classic hands that he reported where the

player(s) who made the key (or lesson) play(s) were male and how many were females. [There were many hands where the identities of the players were not reported, and there were some where both a male and a female were involved.] Most of the reported deals came from the 1930's, '40's, and 50's. Allowing for error of measurement (me), the number of hands where the key player(s) was/were male was approximately 55 where-as the number of hands where they were female was approximately 16, roughly a 3:1 ratio. In some cases, males and females were both involved, and several famous players were involved in multiple hands. I did this because I recalled a deal that Karpin reported that was reportedly played many years ago by Mary Jane Farrell (who, I have been told, still plays professionally and teaches in the L.A. area). The author concluded the report of the hand by stating that "I am certain that even the most ardent pro-male-chauvinist- who is convinced that men are infinitely superior to women as bridgeplayers- would be willing to say that Mary Jane played the hand "like a man"." Interesting comment IMO. Such are some of the histories and biases that have existed regarding male versus female bridge players over time. Also, and I don't have the statistics, an important issue IMO is the ratio of males to females (or vice versa) who were playing bridge competitively at the times when these classic hands were played.

 

At the 1970 Summer NABCs in Boston, we put on a play (intended to be a comedy, not a flop) about the topic of whether or not males were better bridge players than females based on a mock team game (one team all male, one all female). This was a time of considerable societal change, to say the least, and this was a very hot topic. We neatly wiggled out of it by having the match end in a tie...we were so clever! (If any of the readers actually were there and saw this play, let me know: I had a key role in the play.) Even back then it seemed to me on the surface (observation) that the majority of younger players (under 30) and the vast majority of very fine players in/ around the Boston area (ex. Bramley, Jacobus, Sion, et. al.) were males, some attending top-flight colleges in the area (Harvard/MIT). There were many non-junior top-flight women players, but the numbers, when compared to males, seemed to be lower. There were also a few extremely good married couples. The point of this is that, to some degree, before a number of the forum members were born, the issue of male versus female bridge players might have been, at least in part, impacted by numbers. (Role definitions, although relatively "traditional", were also starting to change as more opportunities for women were emerging.) Based upon some earlier posts, it appears that there continues to be some continuation of some of the barriers and beliefs about this male-female issue that female bridge players still experience, although it is now a very different world and, hopefully, many changes have also occured.

 

I am dismayed at the reported differences in treatment or attitudes toward junior females that has been discussed. How much of this is related to some above-mentioned factors is unclear. IMO, it might be interesting if not very important to compare and contrast the levels of bridge-related knowledge and skills that males and females had prior to attending these junior programs/ camps, and the impact that any differences might have on outcome (sort of like, in education, a "pre-test/post-test" model.).

 

I have some difficulties with reports or studies that conclude that females are less capable on various visual-spatial abilities than are males. Males might or might not tend to score higher on current measures of visual-spatial abilities or math, but this tells you nothing about causation. There are multiple intervening variables including experience, expectations, opportunities to advance in areas that emphasize such skills, role expectations, societal norms, etc., etc. So, i would be cautious about correlating any supposed genetic or cognitive factors with potential for success at bridge. And, as far as i know, there are not any significant differences between males and females in terms of memory store potential, and memory skills can be taught!.

 

But, if enough females feel that they are experiencing/ receiving less confident and encouraging messages, both verbal and nonverbal, from junior programs (or any programs including the acbl), then this is an issue that needs to be made very clear to those who run as well as those who sponsor these programs. And if, by some chance, research suggests that there might be some differences between males and females in terms of knowledge base/ experience/ skill levels upon beginning such programs (for whatever reasons), then these issues, too, need to be addressed. Other factors being equal (the great intervening variable), I know of no reason why there should be such a difference between success of male and female players, including juniors.

 

One factor that might be impacting on junior bridge and attendance in general could be economic, the cost to play. Card fees have, at least, tripled from when I started playing. The ability of many younger players to travel significant distances to play was and might still be limited except, perhaps, for some more fortunate players. Access to quality instruction is not inexpensive although access to literature and basic training is now more available thanks to the internet and programs such as LTPB. What is the target populations for this "Bridge is Cool" campaign? How attractive is bridge going to be to kids coming from less fortunate, if not inner city, backgrounds given the basic economics unless methods to make the game more available and meaningful to more kids are improved and role models increased? I don't know what the situation is on college campuses: I'll let richard address that. But, there are a whole lot of factors including target populations that the promoters of the game need to start looking at if they don't want the numbers of people playing the game and the numbers of teens and 20-somethings playing the game to significantly diminish.

[Walddk]

I think the bridge politicians are the culprits. Now they added a "girls' series" to the European Youth Championships. Why is that necessary? Isn't it exactly at that age (under 25) you would want to throw away the barriers? This is not the way forward for the women/girls in my opinion, and they really should object.

 

This is often a matter of tradition. Take the Camrose Trophy (men) and Lady Milne Trophy (women) in Great Britain & Ireland for example. They started this in the mid 30's, and they are still going strong. No one is ever going to change it, although I think they should make it one and call it the Cam-Milne Trophy.

 

You never get rid of the traditions if you keep creating new events for women and girls. On the contrary, you add fuel to the flames.

 

Roland

[Double !]

I think the bridge politicians are the culprits. Now they added a "girls' series" to the European Youth Championships. Why is that necessary? Isn't it exactly at that age (under 25) you would want to throw away the barriers? This is not the way forward for the women/girls in my opinion, and they really should object.

 

This is often a matter of tradition. Take the Camrose Trophy (men) and Lady Milne Trophy (women) in Great Britain & Ireland for example. They started this in the mid 30's, and they are still going strong. No one is ever going to change it, although I think they should make it one and call it the Cam-Milne Trophy.

 

You never get rid of the traditions if you keep creating new events for women and girls. On the contrary, you add fuel to the flames.

 

Roland

SO?

 

How about the powers to be and the people who are influential bridge-wise in their countries doing something to change it. Otherwise, you perpetuate a situation based on its history or tradition that you now regard as being wrong. Look at the world of golf. I can't wait to see what happens at Augusta National (The Masters Tournament) should a female qualify to play in it (at an all male private club). Michelle Wei came very close to qualifying this year in the US Public Links Tourney. It's just a matter of time. If we feel or know that something is wrong, doesn't it make sense to try to do something about it? Like the female juniors insisting on equal access? As long as the market supports a product or a service, where's the motivation to change the product or service?

 

Oh, expletive deleted! I swore to myself that I would never get involved in political issues on this forum. I humbly repent.