[the hog]

matmat, on Dec 30 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

i think OzOne was(is?) also sponsored by an anonymous donor.

Well yes, but everyone knew who he was - one of the world's leading gamblers. Made a fortune by designing a system to bet on the horses. He died about a year ago.

If you are interested, here is a very interesting article about his life and times:
http://www.tonywilso...g/alanwoods.php

[ASkolnick]

I was the one who brought up the "affair" and I only did so because when people use the word affair, that is what I thought. Once it was corrected, I was curious because of other things I knew happened to go on at other times.

As for the "alleged" cheating in SF, now I am curious about that.

[cherdano]

ASkolnick, on Jan 2 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

As for the "alleged" cheating in SF, now I am curious about that.

From what I know there was absolutely no basis for the rumors about cheating.

[qwery_hi]

cherdano, on Jan 2 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on Jan 2 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

As for the "alleged" cheating in SF, now I am curious about that.

From what I know there was absolutely no basis for the rumors about cheating.

Glad we got that cleared up.

ASkolnick, I'm afraid you will have to satisfy your curiosity at some other place. I'm not sure when you joined these forums, but I'm not too far off the mark (I hope) when I say that most regulars know that posts about cheating, alleged or real, are not appropriate in this forum.

[the hog]

qwery_hi, on Jan 3 2009, 01:34 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jan 2 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on Jan 2 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

As for the "alleged" cheating in SF, now I am curious about that.

From what I know there was absolutely no basis for the rumors about cheating.

Glad we got that cleared up.

ASkolnick, I'm afraid you will have to satisfy your curiosity at some other place. I'm not sure when you joined these forums, but I'm not too far off the mark (I hope) when I say that most regulars know that posts about cheating, alleged or real, are not appropriate in this forum.

There have been lots of posts about cheating and allegations thereof.

[ASkolnick]

Not a problem. If this is not the appropriate forum, OK.

[Gerben42]

What I don't get is: Why can't people assume they are just playing for themselves? Is there a rule that you must have a sponsor to be allowed in?

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Dec 31 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

brianshark, on Dec 31 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

Who would sponser a bridge team anonymously? I'm just wondering what they get out of it. They don't get to play on the team, and they don't have their name associated with a top team, and they don't get anything advertised on their behalf. I'm just curious what the motivation behind anonymous sponsorship tends to be.

One possible explanation, that has been speculated in this case, is that a team of (at least mostly) women doing well in open events would be a good thing for bridge.

Can anyone think of other possible explanations? I was wondering the same thing.

[Lobowolf]

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

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jan 7 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

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

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

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

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 7 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

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

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

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

I agree; I was actually being facetious.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jan 7 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 7 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

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

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

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

I agree; I was actually being facetious.

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

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 7 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

[blackshoe]

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

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

[TimG]

qwery_hi, on Jan 7 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

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

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

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

[Lobowolf]

TimG, on Jan 7 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 7 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

[awm]

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

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

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

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

[Lobowolf]

awm, on Jan 7 2009, 04:43 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

[TimG]

Lobowolf, on Jan 7 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 7 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 7 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lobowolf]

TimG, on Jan 7 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 7 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 7 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 7 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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