[pclayton]

mrdct, on Oct 8 2007, 03:39 AM, said:

Ladies and seniors events are an embarrassment for a mind-sport such as bridge. I wonder if chess and go have these restricted events at their world championships?

Ladies and seniors are essentailly a money-spinner for national bridge associations where females and old people make up a majority of players where a bit of product differentiation helps maximise revenue.

Dave, you can't be serious. Do you realize how sexist this sounds?

I don't know about chess and go, but the WSOP does have a ladies-only event which is very popular.

Maybe we can schedule a misogynist pairs for you.

[awm]

There is something a little strange about senior events in bridge, considering that:

In the US, the average age of bridge players is well above the "senior" age.

There are many individuals of "senior" age and above who are still very competitive in the open events.

In a sport like golf, physical skills tend to decline with age and it makes sense to have a separate event for the older folks who are presumably at a disadvantage. Mental acumen can decline with age as well, but I suspect this happens more slowly and would become a factor much later on.

At least they're gradually raising the senior age to make it a bit more reasonable.

[Walddk]

I have just been told that BBO does not have a say when we reach the semi-finals. All matches are selected by the organisers. Two competing bridge sites with a handful of spectators will broadcast the BB matches in SF1.

Inexplicable, period.

Roland

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Oct 8 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

I have just been told that BBO does not have a say when we reach the semi-finals. All matches are selected by the organisers. Two competing bridge sites with a handful of spectators will broadcast the BB matches in SF1.

Inexplicable, period.

Roland

What are you saying? The BB semis WONT be on BBO????

[Walddk]

pclayton, on Oct 8 2007, 07:57 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 8 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

I have just been told that BBO does not have a say when we reach the semi-finals. All matches are selected by the organisers. Two competing bridge sites with a handful of spectators will broadcast the BB matches in SF1.

Inexplicable, period.

Roland

What are you saying? The BB semis WONT be on BBO????

I am saying that Mr Jean-Paul Meyer from France has decided that BBO will not get a BB match in SF1 = first segment of the semi-finals.

http://www.worldbridge.org/bulletin/07_2%2.../pdf/bul_10.pdf ... Page 1

Don't blame us, no one thinks it's a good idea to ask us. Not that it will help at this point (too late), but complaints should be addressed to JPM.

jeanpaul.meyer@noos.fr

This decision is so blatantly ridiculous that it defies belief.

Roland

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Oct 8 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 8 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

I have just been told that BBO does not have a say when we reach the semi-finals. All matches are selected by the organisers. Two competing bridge sites with a handful of spectators will broadcast the BB matches in SF1.

Inexplicable, period.

Roland

What are you saying? The BB semis WONT be on BBO????

My assumption would be the following:

This round of the competition consist of four separate matches.

From the sounds of things, three different bridge sites will be covering the eight tables. BBO will not have a say regarding which of the four matches they will be permitted to cover.

This situation actually exposes a significant flaw with the current system: There is a limit to the number of observers who can "perch" over the playing table and watch what is taking place. I don't think that it is practical to have more than two external bridge sites covering a single table. If we hit a stage where three or more sites want to provide coverage something has got to give...

Long term, I see two potential solutions to the problem:

1. The various online bridge sites cooperate and develop some kind of gateway by which a single observer can relay information to multiple online services.

2. The WBF starts to auction off the right to cover these matches. Whoever pays the most gets to position an observer in the catbird seat.

I would suggest that the online bridge providers and the public would best be served if "Option 1" were to happen before the WBF figures out that they are best served by "Option 2".

[fred]

If you are going to e-mail, JP, please try to be polite.

JP has been a massive supporter of BBO for many years and he is also a very nice man. It is entirely possible that he made an error in judgment here, but I have no doubt that his heart is in the right place and that he believes he has good reasons for his decision (if indeed it was his decision).

JP Meyer has been a true and valuable friend to BBO. Let's try to keep it that way

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Oct 8 2007, 09:14 PM, said:

This decision is so blatantly ridiculous that it defies belief.

I'm not happy with the situation either, however, to be fair, BBO is getting two Vugraph slots as opposed to one each for the other two providers.

I think that it is important to recognize that its not in the WBF's interest to allow any one site to "own" Vugraph coverage. Yes, BBO serves the largest client base, but do you really think that the WBF wants to have to treat a third party organization like BBO as an equal?

I've been arguing for years that organizations like the WBF and the ACBL should be trying to promote technical standards so that customers (folks like us) enjoy more choice.

[Walddk]

fred, on Oct 8 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

If you are going to e-mail, JP, please try to be polite.

JP has been a massive supporter of BBO for many years and he is also a very nice man. It is entirely possible that he made an error in judgment here, but I have no doubt that his heart is in the right place and that he believes he has good reasons for his decision (if indeed it was his decision).

JP Meyer has been a true and valuable friend to BBO. Let's try to keep it that way

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I agree with Fred entirely. JP Meyer is a very nice man and there is no reason not to be polite if you think he has made an error in judgement. We all make mistakes, and I am sure we will survive segment 1 even though we don't get a match from the Bermuda Bowl.

Still five segments to go. I am convinced that we will get plenty of USA1, South Africa, Norway and Netherlands (the semifinalists in the BB) from segment two and onwards.

Roland

[mrdct]

What about a one-table "pirate" broadcast of a Bermuda Bowl semi-final by an operator not actually at the table (or in the country for that matter) who could watch the broadcast of one of the other providers on one screen and key the action into a BBO vugraph prsentation on another screen. Would just need a way to get the dup file for the session to that operator shortly after the match starts.

[mrdct]

fred, on Oct 8 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 8 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

Ladies and seniors events are an embarrassment for a mind-sport such as bridge.  I wonder if chess and go have these restricted events at their world championships?

Ladies and seniors are essentailly a money-spinner for national bridge associations where females and old people make up a majority of players where a bit of product differentiation helps maximise revenue.

Do you also think that women's hurdles should be eliminated as an Olympic event or that the seniors' golf tour should be abolished?

Who exactly is it that is being embarassed by the fact that these events exist? As a bridge player and fan I do not find these events to be even remotely embarassing.

I think athletic pursuits are quite different to mind-sports in that there are physical limitations in the former which prevent women from being able to compete against men so it's quite fair and reasonable to have separate male and female events. At the Olympics for at least one sport where gender doesn't make any difference to one's ability to compete, males compete against females in "open" events; which is the way it should be for such sports, including bridge.

In golf, you don't see the any seniors events being played on the same day and on the same golf course as a major open event.

The embarrassment is for the game itself which is essentially saying that being female gives rise to some sort of mental impairment. Of course I would never suggest such a misogynist view.

I don't really mind womens and seniors event existing, indeed they are quite important economically for the game, but they shouldn't be interfering with the presentation of the world's most prestigious bridge event.

When it comes to what I want to watch on vugraph, I don't think I'm alone in my preference to watch the best players which of course will be in the Bermuda Bowl.

[ralph23]

mrdct, on Oct 8 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

Of course I would never suggest such a misogynist view.

misogynist = a man who hates women as much as women hate each other. (Mencken??)

[fred]

mrdct, on Oct 8 2007, 09:44 PM, said:

The embarrassment is for the game itself which is essentially saying that being female gives rise to some sort of mental impairment. Of course I would never suggest such a misogynist view.

Here is where we disagree.

I am not even sure it makes sense to talk about a game being embarassed or a game saying something, but sticking with your terminology, here is what the game is saying to me:

The best seniors, womens (and junior) players as a general rule cannot compete effectively with the best open players.

The game is right in this case. This is obviously true and saying so does not make me a misogynist or an enemy of the elderly.

To say that this is *necessarily* true would have addition implications, but I don't think either the game itself or the WBF is saying that.

As long as this state of affairs exists it makes perfect sense (to me at least) that large and well-defined groups of bridge players should be able to have their own events (especially if they want them). It also makes perfect sense to me that the WBF should be running and promoting these events (as they are).

Mental impairment does not come into play until you start to draw specific conclusions about why open bridge reigns supreme. And even if you had evidence that the best youngish male bridge players tended to be better (necessarily) than the best oldish female bridge players, that would not imply that old females were mentally impaired. It would just mean that youngish males were better at bridge. So what? Why should that be embarassing?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Oct 8 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 8 2007, 03:39 AM, said:

Ladies and seniors events are an embarrassment for a mind-sport such as bridge.  I wonder if chess and go have these restricted events at their world championships?

Ladies and seniors are essentailly a money-spinner for national bridge associations where females and old people make up a majority of players where a bit of product differentiation helps maximise revenue.

Dave, you can't be serious. Do you realize how sexist this sounds?

I don't know about chess and go, but the WSOP does have a ladies-only event which is very popular.

Maybe we can schedule a misogynist pairs for you.

[I had to google WSOP, it "World series of Poker", the largest series of poker tournaments. I strongly believe it is possible to spell terms like this out and still be cool. ]

To me mrdct's positions sounds feminist rather than sexist. Actually I should put it in stronger terms, it is a 100% feminist position.

I don't know of any other mind sport that has a women-only world championship at the same time as the open one. Well, this isn't the worst part, not only do the best women play in the women's world championship rather than the open, they also play in the Women's Wagar rather than the Spingold, etc. Yes there is something like championships for women in go, but the events the female go pros really want to play in and win are the open ones. Same for chess championships.

I really think bridge has this seriously wrong, and that this is very bad for women's bridge. To reply to Fred's point, yes I think there is nothing wrong with a Women's World Championship in bridge, but the women's events shouldn't be the important ones for female bridge players. Making those events the important ones (by seeding points, the recognition they get for winning, etc.) indeed comes quite close to implying that the level of women's bridge is necessarily lower than that of men's bridge.

To say it differently: while the overall level in the Venice Cup certainly can't compare to the level of the Bermuda Bowl, there are probably individual female players or partnerships that would have a good shot at doing well in the Bermuda Bowl. I would love to see them compete there.

I guess Helene said it all much better in her sarcastic remark.

Btw, as usual I need some help with my English (Ron where are you): why is it called "Ladies'" in bridge and poker, but "women's" everywhere else?

[awm]

I agree with Cherdano.

Look at things from the viewpoint of a top female partnership (say Auken-Von Arnim). They could quite possibly be better than some of the pairs on their country's open team (Germany didn't even make the BB). It would be good for their country to have them play in the BB, and it would also be good for the reputation of women in bridge to see some pairs like this competing in the open world championship. However, the Venice Cup and Bermuda Bowl are simultaneous, and they have to select one or the other. Since Auken-Von Arnim are by far one of the best female pairs, it seems like having them on the Venice Cup team gives Germany a good chance to win the whole thing. Putting them on the BB team could improve the team, but perhaps not to the point where they could beat teams like Italy or the US. So the current system, while creating some additional opportunities for women in bridge, also seems to create incentives for women not to play in the BB.

Personally, I would enjoy watching the Venice Cup (particularly the late rounds). It's still good bridge, and it's nice to know who my girlfriend's competitors are in the women's field. But if I'm given the choice of watching VC or BB (because they are held at the same time) I'm going to watch the BB.

So it does seem that holding the events at different times would create more opportunities for the top women (letting them both play in their own events and play in the open) as well as getting them more visibility to the bridge community.

[Echognome]

awm, on Oct 8 2007, 03:21 PM, said:

Look at things from the viewpoint of a top female partnership (say Auken-Von Arnim). <snip> However, the Venice Cup and Bermuda Bowl are simultaneous, and they have to select one or the other. <snip>

Who are "they"? I'm just asking if you are referring to Auken-von Arnim or the German NBO?

Presumably they can try for both teams and choose to play in the BB if they are selected. Of course this depends on when the trials are held for each. I don't know if they overlap of course, I'm just not assuming they do.

[fred]

awm, on Oct 8 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

I agree with Cherdano.

Look at things from the viewpoint of a top female partnership (say Auken-Von Arnim). They could quite possibly be better than some of the pairs on their country's open team (Germany didn't even make the BB). It would be good for their country to have them play in the BB, and it would also be good for the reputation of women in bridge to see some pairs like this competing in the open world championship. However, the Venice Cup and Bermuda Bowl are simultaneous, and they have to select one or the other. Since Auken-Von Arnim are by far one of the best female pairs, it seems like having them on the Venice Cup team gives Germany a good chance to win the whole thing. Putting them on the BB team could improve the team, but perhaps not to the point where they could beat teams like Italy or the US. So the current system, while creating some additional opportunities for women in bridge, also seems to create incentives for women not to play in the BB.

Personally, I would enjoy watching the Venice Cup (particularly the late rounds). It's still good bridge, and it's nice to know who my girlfriend's competitors are in the women's field. But if I'm given the choice of watching VC or BB (because they are held at the same time) I'm going to watch the BB.

So it does seem that holding the events at different times would create more opportunities for the top women (letting them both play in their own events and play in the open) as well as getting them more visibility to the bridge community.

I agree with awm and Cherdano (except the part about awm's girlfriend).

Not running the BB and VC concurrently would solve some problems.

But my sense is that doing this would create other problems that the WBF would (reasonably) consider to be more serious.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[geller]

In golf the seniors get to ride in carts while the mainstream pros have to walk.

In bridge stamina is a big factor. Shortly before he died from cancer Oswald Jacoby won the Reisinger (America's nationa board-a-match event) at the age of about 80. But he only played one session a day for three days. In view of his health problems I doubt he could have kept up that level for the 2 weeks or so of the Bermuda Bowl. So it seems reasonable to have separate senior events.

The question of women's events is more complicated. I'll try not to step on any landmines.....

I don't believe there are significant inherent biological differences between women's and men's brainpower for playing bridge, but the sociological factors are clearly different. Here in Japan (as in the US) there are many women who have won major national open team and pair events, but over the years probably about 90% of the winners have been men, despite the fact that well over half the members of the Japan Contract Bridge League (JCBL) are women. Women's team and pair events (national, regional and sectional) are very popular with the JCBL membership. So the women players themselves are eager to play in women's events.

Maybe the reason for the relative lack of success of women in open (non-sex-restricted) national events has to do with a carryover of children's socialization being different for boys (encouraged to be more competitive) than girls. I don't know.

But anyway, I'm sure the situation regarding women's bridge is similar to Japan's in many other countries. That being the case, I don't think the WBF should be criticized for holding a women's championship, although this can be criticized from a strictly ("Spock-like") "logical" point of view.

-Bob

[Gerben42]

Quote

Presumably they can try for both teams and choose to play in the BB if they are selected. Of course this depends on when the trials are held for each. I don't know if they overlap of course, I'm just not assuming they do.

They played in the German trials a few years ago but were eliminated. Then the last two times a rule was applied that if the German Open team was successful enough (top 10 in the European Championships) then this team may continue to play and no further trials are needed.

For a discussion why women are less successful than men in mind sports like bridge and chess, check Sabine's explanation in her book. She says it has to do with men being more able to focus on one thing whereas women are more able to multi-task.

[helene_t]

mrdct, on Oct 8 2007, 11:09 PM, said:

What about a one-table "pirate" broadcast of a Bermuda Bowl semi-final by an operator not actually at the table (or in the country for that matter) who could watch the broadcast of one of the other providers on one screen and key the action into a BBO vugraph prsentation on another screen. Would just need a way to get the dup file for the session to that operator shortly after the match starts.

Yes, we just set up a server on the Caiman Islands. The financial stuff is taken care of by a Gibraltar bank. The details are discussed on an encrypted forum not affiliated with Fred, Uday or any other person with a real-life identity. You know where to find us.