[cherdano]

 gnasher, on 2011-July-25, 10:48, said:

 cherdano, on 2011-July-25, 10:26, said:

- It encourages women to form partnerships with another woman, rather than with the most suitable partner they could find. This (and the fact that open and women events are parallel, unlike Junior events) decreases the number of women playing in the best teams in the open events.

Is that a reason to object to the existence of women's events? Nobody is forced into an unsuitable partnership - if someone chooses to play in an event where their choice of partner is restricted, presumably they're willing to accept the consequences.

It isn't in your logic for the existence of these events. But it is a reason to object to Adam's reason to support them:

 awm, on 2011-July-24, 16:37, said:

The purpose of these categories is to promote bridge for groups which are under-represented at the elite levels of the game.

Regardless of the reason you ascribe to it, the fact is that a very small percentage of the people who are competitive in the elite open events are female. The hope is that the ladies events give promising female players additional opportunities to compete and gain experience, find professional sponsorships, and so forth. This will promote serious competitive bridge among women (who might otherwise become discouraged upon seeing that most of the world-class players are male).

[awm]

There is a women's chess championship. There are also women's go tournaments and poker tournaments.

The arguments in favor of continuing to have these events:

(1) They increase opportunities for professionalism among female players.
(2) They create opportunities for individuals to win a national/international championship, thus increasing participation in high-level competition.
(3) They help people who might be otherwise unable to gain international experience to do so.
(4) They increase the visibility of top female players, which may help advertise the game in any number of ways.
(5) They raise money for the league.
(6) To the degree that (some) men can be offensive and/or sexist to women, these events are an opportunity for women to escape from that for a while.

I believe that all of these are great for the game and fairly incontrovertible. The only arguments against the events that I've seen here:

(1) They are sexist because of an unstated implication that women are inherently worse at bridge.

So many other games/sports have these events that this claim seems a bit dubious. Further, it is the ladies playing in these events that encourage their existence. If a very high percentage of women thought this way and refused to play in them, the ladies events would go away. It's also interesting that it always seems to be men who make this complaint. How many women have even posted in this thread?

(2) Somehow the existence of these events causes women to be worse at bridge.

I don't really get this one. First, no one is forcing anyone to play in these events at all. Second, playing more bridge usually causes one to improve and to the degree that having these events gets more women out to national and international tournaments it is making their game better. Third, playing bridge full-time is a great way to improve and seems to be almost a pre-requisite for attaining the top levels of the game, and having these events creates more opportunities for women to do this. Fourth, while there is a case that we should all "play against the best possible competition" the fact is that a great many of the best male players participated in youth events and masterpoint-limited events during the early stages of their careers. This doesn't seem to have been a disaster for them; if anything it helped them experience playing in the late rounds of a championship (even if not an open championship) and meet other up-and-coming players who are in some ways similar to themselves with whom they have formed long-term friendships and partnerships. It also helped them advertise themselves to the bridge community (by winning the youth events) and obtain sponsors and coaching and better partners. The ladies events have much the same effects.

-------

As far as qwery-hi's transsexual event, there are several problems with that. The main one is viability -- if we assume that 2000 people show up to a typical large bridge tournament and 0.5% of them are transsexual, that doesn't even give us a three-table game. And that's if they all partner up and participate -- in fact for any number of reasons transsexuals might prefer not to be singled out in this way and choose not to attend. Further, if the event was a great success and had the effect of doubling the number of transsexuals who play tournament bridge, that would not really be a significant financial gain for the league (i.e. 0.5% increase in membership not a huge deal). There are also issues with determining who is actually eligible for the event, issues that the league probably doesn't want to deal with.

[qwery_hi]

[quote name='awm' timestamp='1311645999' post='563700']
There is a women's chess championship. There are also women's go tournaments and poker tournaments.

The arguments in favor of continuing to have these events:

(1) They increase opportunities for professionalism among female players.
(2) They create opportunities for individuals to win a national/international championship, thus increasing participation in high-level competition.
(3) They help people who might be otherwise unable to gain international experience to do so.
(4) They increase the visibility of top female players, which may help advertise the game in any number of ways.
(5) They raise money for the league.
(6) To the degree that (some) men can be offensive and/or sexist to women, these events are an opportunity for women to escape from that for a while.

I believe that all of these are great for the game and fairly incontrovertible.

-- Absolutely.

The question, as always, is optimal allocation of resources. Women already make up 51% of the ACBL membership. Although I am all for giving minority groups added advantages, and even if women can somehow be considered a minority group since they aren't adequately represented at the elite levels ( highly doubtful ), there are numerous other minority groups that are vastly more underrepresented in bridge, and it would do the game more good to concentrate on them. Case in point - why spend double the resources to conduct separate womens and mens trials? Have everyone play in one trials, and select the best female and male teams.
The entry fees would be the same, cost would be less, and the money saved could ,e.g. be used to fund a minority scholarship, or waive the entry fees for low income players - you get the idea.

Such activities would add more *new* players to the game, e.g. how many women refuse to start playing bridge if there were no womens only events? I'd argue such activities do more good for the game too.

Also, the chess analogy doesn;t hold, women are a true minority among chess players, about 15% in chess vs 50% in bridge.

[MrAce]

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

There is a women's chess championship. There are also women's go tournaments and poker tournaments.

There is no such a thing where it says "Russian female chess team" or "American female poker team" correct me if i am wrong. I dont remember any female WSOP either.

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

(1) They increase opportunities for professionalism among female players.

True, we have players who gets paid to play in those events, while they would probably HAVE TO pay in order to play in a good team in open. But i agree with you on this one.

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

(2) They create opportunities for individuals to win a national/international championship, thus increasing participation in high-level competition.

What national/international and what high level competition are you talking about ? How can u even use those words for an event where the best players are not allowed to play in it ?

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

(3) They help people who might be otherwise unable to gain international experience to do so.

Again, what international experience are you talking about when the best international players are not allowed to play in it ?

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

(4) They increase the visibility of top female players, which may help advertise the game in any number of ways.

Here we go, i am asking again, which u did not answer in my previous attempts, what makes you think women are some fragile human beings and they would not play the game they love if you did not come up with this category ? Why do you think what makes a man attached to this game, does not apply to women and that they need to be protected by a category assigned to them ? Unbelivable !

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

(5) They raise money for the league.

Women don't raise money for the league, all BRIDGE players do, regardless of their age,sex and level. If this category did not exist, they would play in the existing ones and they would still pay the fee that we all pay.

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

(6) To the degree that (some) men can be offensive and/or sexist to women, these events are an opportunity for women to escape from that for a while.

I can't believe u wrote this [censored]....Now that is something i dont know how to comment, but i will try to. I am coming from a country where the % 99 of population is Muslim. At the top of it the traditional life style that we had for centuries is way far from the western culture in some cities. Women and men has been kept apart from each other for centuries and they could not develop a healthy civilized relation with each other compared to western culture. What u said here has not been a concern EVEN for these men and women who i call ROOKIE when it comes to social activities with each other. There will always be someone to give as a bad example, i know, but that applies to everything in life, and i am sure every organisation has their comitees to deal with that kind of behaviour.

[hotShot]

 qwery_hi, on 2011-July-25, 21:14, said:

The question, as always, is optimal allocation of resources. Women already make up 51% of the ACBL membership.

51% of the ACBL members are female and what is the percentage of females in the open event of a national championship?
Obviously the ACBL has to promote it's own events to the members.

Lets look at athletics (100m) Usain Bolt set the world record at 9,58, Florence Griffith-Joyner set the women record to 10,49.
It seems generally accepted, that this is reason enough to have men and women compete seperatly.

So simply by looking at the result history of national open events:
- what was the best result an all female team reached and
- what was the best result a team with a female pair reached.

If half of the titles/top ten results are won by such teams, than there is no need for separate events.
If this is not the case, than it makes sense to create separate womens events, perhaps just to increase the number of females competing in top events something that will result in more and better top player. Once the number has increased a lot, there might be evidence if there is a difference between the genders in the level of bridge.

[gnasher]

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

Fourth, while there is a case that we should all "play against the best possible competition" the fact is that a great many of the best male players participated in youth events and masterpoint-limited events during the early stages of their careers. This doesn't seem to have been a disaster for them; if anything it helped them experience playing in the late rounds of a championship (even if not an open championship) and meet other up-and-coming players who are in some ways similar to themselves with whom they have formed long-term friendships and partnerships. It also helped them advertise themselves to the bridge community (by winning the youth events) and obtain sponsors and coaching and better partners. The ladies events have much the same effects.

I don't think it helps to play in an event where you're hoplessly outclassed, but it is beneficial to play against people who are better than you. If you are one of the best players in a particular category, and you play only against other players in that category, you won't be challenged and it will be harder for you to improve. How many people become top-class players by playing at their local golf club?

[qwery_hi]

[quote name='hotShot' timestamp='1311663702' post='563745']
51% of the ACBL members are female and what is the percentage of females in the open event of a national championship?
Obviously the ACBL has to promote it's own events to the members.

What is the percentage of African Americans in the open event? Of American Indians? Of various other minority groups? At least the low percentage of women is partly due to a women's only event - wtf excuse does the ACBL have for the ridiculous under representation of these minority groups?

[qwery_hi]

Agree, although just a couple of years ago Djokovic was hopelessly outclassed by Nadal and Federer. Look where he is now.

 gnasher, on 2011-July-26, 01:38, said:

I don't think it helps to play in an event where you're hoplessly outclassed, but it is beneficial to play against people who are better than you. If you are one of the best players in a particular category, and you play only against other players in that category, you won't be challenged and it will be harder for you to improve. How many people become top-class players by playing at their local golf club?

[Zelandakh]

 hotShot, on 2011-July-26, 01:01, said:

So simply by looking at the result history of national open events:
- what was the best result an all female team reached and
- what was the best result a team with a female pair reached.

It is perhaps interesting to mention here that in the 30s and 40s Josephine Culbertson was widely regarded as one of the top players in the world. This was before the era of women's-only events so she played mostly with men. By specifying in your question "a female pair" you are actually highlighting one of the problems with the current arrangement.

[kenberg]

I'm 72. I guess I have played in Senior events a couple of times when I was asked, but it's not my cup of tea. At home, unlike some my age, I am pleased that there are families with kids living nearby. Others feel differently, and fine, let them.

Having the women's pairs and the open pairs is obviously asymmetrical. I don't plan to put on a dress and try to crash it. I just don't care. I would not want the job of trying to justify this, but I am fine with ignoring it.

[hotShot]

 qwery_hi, on 2011-July-26, 01:53, said:

 hotShot, on 2011-July-26, 01:01, said:

51% of the ACBL members are female and what is the percentage of females in the open event of a national championship?
Obviously the ACBL has to promote it's own events to the members.

What is the percentage of African Americans in the open event? Of American Indians? Of various other minority groups? At least the low percentage of women is partly due to a women's only event - wtf excuse does the ACBL have for the ridiculous under representation of these minority groups?

Didn't you realize that women are the majority group (51%). Rules for minorities don't apply to the majority.
I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure that seniors are also a majority group.

Juniors are a minority in the ACBL, if you want to talk about them fine.

[sfi]

 hrothgar, on 2011-July-25, 10:42, said:

The following is ACBL specific.

Jill Blanchard sued the ACBL claiming that the existence of events limited to men only was discriminatory.
The ACBL eliminated said event.

To my knowledge, no males have sued the ACBL arguing that the existence of events limited to women only was discriminatory.
Anyone who wants to should feel free to do so.

My understanding is that the essence of the suit was somewhat different. At one point in a nationals tournament the two major events were Mens Pairs and Womens Pairs. This meant that Blanchard and her (male) partner had no reasonable choice of events to play in. Their claim was that this situation was discriminatory, and led to Open/Women events.

It did not immediately lead to the abolition of mens events - I played in a mens pairs event at a regional about two years after the suit. Don't remember what else was on at the time though.

[hotShot]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-July-26, 03:27, said:

It is perhaps interesting to mention here that in the 30s and 40s Josephine Culbertson was widely regarded as one of the top players in the world. This was before the era of women's-only events so she played mostly with men. By specifying in your question "a female pair" you are actually highlighting one of the problems with the current arrangement.

If it help to beautify the numbers include teams with a female player. But I expect that won't help much.

[billw55]

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

Further, it is the ladies playing in these events that encourage their existence. If a very high percentage of women thought this way and refused to play in them, the ladies events would go away.

The most relevant comment in this thread. It is women who want these events. ACBL is a business; they provide a service that is in demand. End of story.

[ArtK78]

 MrAce, on 2011-July-26, 00:25, said:

There is no such a thing where it says "Russian female chess team" or "American female poker team" correct me if i am wrong. I dont remember any female WSOP either.

If you meant to say that you do not remember any female WSOP event, then your memory is faulty.

There is a ladies event at the WSOP. Interestingly enough, due to Nevada law which prevents restrictions on who may enter an event based on categories such as gender, there is no legal impediment to a man entering the ladies event, and several men did enter the event this year (no well known players, and none reached the final table - one did cash, however). The entry of men in the ladies event always creates discussion, and it is generally regarded as being in poor taste. The existence of the ladies event usually generates less discussion.

Jennifer Tilly won the Ladies event at the WSOP on June 27, 2005.

[MrAce]

 ArtK78, on 2011-July-26, 08:26, said:

If you meant to say that you do not remember any female WSOP event, then your memory is faulty.

There is a ladies event at the WSOP....

Yes, true, i stand corrected on this.

[qwery_hi]

[quote name='MrAce' timestamp='1311661552' post='563740']
There is no such a thing where it says "Russian female chess team" or "American female poker team" correct me if i am wrong. I dont remember any female WSOP either.

Here is the russian womens team for the chess olympiad -

http://www.ugra-ches...eamid=89&tmnt=2

[FrancesHinden]

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

Further, it is the ladies playing in these events that encourage their existence. If a very high percentage of women thought this way and refused to play in them, the ladies events would go away. It's also interesting that it always seems to be men who make this complaint. How many women have even posted in this thread?

I'll add to the number. Maybe I shouldn't, because I don't play women's bridge. Overall my attitude is almost exactly the same as gnasher's: I'm not interested because I don't see the point but if other people want to then why should I stop them?

I think there are two completely different arguments being presented. On the 'promotion' side, the idea that more women will be encouraged to play if there are women only events. I didn't use to believe that, but I've seen some evidence that nervous female players think an all-female event is more encouraging, less unpleasant and are more likely to play. On that basis I agree we should also have events for any other category of people who for whatever reason are frightened or discouraged from playing in open events - whether because they are non-expert, students, protestant, gay, transsexual, under 5 ft tall, obese, one-armed, have their birthday on the 29th February or whatever. We want more people to get hooked and then progress to the open game.

The other discussion is why it's a good idea to have international women's events such as the Venice Cup. Really I can't see the point of this.

It's interesting to see that the women-only events in the EBU are dying much faster than anything else. The women's teams nearly expired completely, and the women's pairs has (I think). If you look at the people who play in the trials for the Lady Milne (the intra-Great-Britain event) the best English players either don't play at all, or play in a pro-client pair. The only time you actually see some of the best women playing together are in the EBL/WBF events, when the teams are selected without trials - and even then some of the best women players in the country stick to open events.




p.s. We can discuss mixed tournaments (which I do play in sometimes) as well, if you like.

[peachy]

I support all events to be for players regardless of their gender. I think that the separate women's events are a relic from the past. The Wagar entries this year are lower than ever (not sure of "ever" but lower than before) so that seems to indicate majority of top level women spread out to open or seniors, in ACBL anyway. There is no separate event for women in, for example ACBL, regional level tournaments, only at a level where Championships are awarded in the national organizations or the WBF. Does that tell us something?

[campboy]

 awm, on 2011-July-25, 20:06, said:

(1) They are sexist because of an unstated implication that women are inherently worse at bridge.

So many other games/sports have these events that this claim seems a bit dubious.

On the contrary, some of the other games you consider make it clearer that they carry this implication. In chess the rank of Woman Grandmaster -- in rating terms -- is below International Master, never mind Grandmaster. There are plenty of other reasons for women-only events, but why does WGM need to exist?