[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jan 7 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

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 could be mistaken, but it seems to me the legal basis of a man's suit against the ACBL for this kind of thing would not be that there was no other event available for him to enter, but rather that he is prohibited, on the basis of sex, from entering the Women's event. In that case, it is the existence of the restriction on the basis of sex in the event in question that is discriminatory, and the existence or non-existence of alternative events not so restricted is irrelevant.

[Lobowolf]

It was relevant to the original lawsuit, that alleged a Civil Rights violation (!!) in that a husband and wife couldn't play every day, every time slot together (as I recall).

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Jan 7 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 7 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

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 could be mistaken, but it seems to me the legal basis of a man's suit against the ACBL for this kind of thing would not be that there was no other event available for him to enter, but rather that he is prohibited, on the basis of sex, from entering the Women's event. In that case, it is the existence of the restriction on the basis of sex in the event in question that is discriminatory, and the existence or non-existence of alternative events not so restricted is irrelevant.

I'm not an attorney, but consider the example of restrooms. If a men's room and a women's room are provided, the men and women have no right to demand access to the opposite sex restroom. But, if only a women's restroom were available, men could then demand access.

[qwery_hi]

TimG, on Jan 8 2009, 08:40 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 7 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

TimG, on Jan 7 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

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 could be mistaken, but it seems to me the legal basis of a man's suit against the ACBL for this kind of thing would not be that there was no other event available for him to enter, but rather that he is prohibited, on the basis of sex, from entering the Women's event. In that case, it is the existence of the restriction on the basis of sex in the event in question that is discriminatory, and the existence or non-existence of alternative events not so restricted is irrelevant.

I'm not an attorney, but consider the example of restrooms. If a men's room and a women's room are provided, the men and women have no right to demand access to the opposite sex restroom. But, if only a women's restroom were available, men could then demand access.

Using this analogy, there are three kinds of restrooms now -

1. women only
2. couples-only (no single men or women)
3. open to all

of course, single folks could pair up and enter restroom 2 if they so desire.

[Vilgan]

As much as I dislike the women's events and am amazed at some of the people who are "national champions", isn't it fairly accepted at this point that there are biological differences between men and women that makes bridge easier for men?

The most observable difference is the female multitask vs the male single task. Men do not multitask well... hence why many of us get "you aren't listening to me!!" comments. Women can do multiple things at once AND listen and don't get why we can't (or that's my excuse for my girlfriend anyway). On the flipside, we are more able to focus and single task better than women. From what I understand, it goes back to the whole... men hunt, women protect the kids and be aware of all threats at once type thing.

There are some other differences, like women tend to pick up and track things better peripherally which can be a distraction as well. One tournament there was a fight that involved the table next to us being thrown across the room that I was not even aware of...

I still dislike restricted events giving a national title, but I don't think its an accident that there are so few all female partnerships that really do well together at the top levels. Cecilia/Sara and Sabine/Danielle are the only 2 partnerships that pop into my head as contenders at that level.

[mycroft]

My opinion on Women's events at NABCs is easily searched for here. Women's events at regionals is another thing entirely, but if women with > 1500 MPs want to play in the lower flight of a stratiflighted event, I'm happy for them</sarcasm>.

It is interesting to note, however, that while the Wagar, say, is easier to *win* than the Spingold, it's probably harder for the rank and file to get anywhere in it (although the siphoning off of a lot of teams into the Restricted Spingolds, and the presence of 10 team-equivalents of non-North American professionals has changed that, too). There may only be 18 teams entering the Wagar, but they all have pretensions of winning it, in a way that every team from say seed 40 down in the Spingold doesn't (they'll play to win, of course, but they don't think there's a chance - they're effectively playing for a Top 16, or for the really low seeds, a scratch). Which is evidence for my belief that entry into NABC Women's events is primarily, if not only, for the seeding points they give for the USWBC trials.

I will admit that the GrLM candidates that get in solely on restricted NABC titles rankle a bit, be it the Women's Pairs or the Senior Swiss (or, to be fair, I guess, the Canadian Team Trial, which is my best chance, such as it is). Sour grapes, it is, I'm sure - as I'm going to be one of the 90-ish seeds at the Spingold, and will likely so remain ever, and with good reason.

From the results in Boston and otherwise, however, I wouldn't count out Wortel/Michielson in open events any time soon...