[aguahombre]

During the Semi's of the Wagar, this year, one of the Vugraph commentators asked why, for such a prestigious event, there were only 14 teams entered.

There were some brief comments about event choices, etc. Anyone care to open this can of worms? I have some theories carried over from way back when we were more in tune with the tournament trail and the people. Think I will keep them to myself unless others mention it.

We all know there are many, many more fine female players who choose to play in different events. Why don't they converge upon the major women's K.O. championships?

[nigel_k]

Avoiding giving offence has never been one of my strengths so here goes:

I think it borders on insulting to even have womens' events. There is no reason that women can't compete and win against men, and plenty of women have done so. It's not athletics.

The womens' events actually hold women back. If there were special events only for left-handers and anyone left handed was encouraged to play in those events, over time the effect would be that the standard of the top right handed players would increase relative to the left handed players just because they would be swimming in a larger talent pool.

If top women players refuse to enter the Wagar they are making the right choice.

[Elianna]

I asked a a female sponsor (who often hires female pros) why she didn't enter the Wagar this year; and she said that it was a feeling of "been there, done that", and she was ready to move on.

I personally choose to not play in the Wagar for two reasons (no particular order):
1) It is MUCH harder for me to find a female partner and female teammates than it is to find teammates who can be any gender.

2) The Wagar seems to have a bad vibe to me. Everyone is in a bad mood, and the field is so small, you kind of feel like you're playing in an event that no one wants to play in.

[awm]

A couple more things about this:

(1) The mini-spingolds have reduced the size of the field somewhat for both Spingold and Wagar.

(2) A team of aspiring young players can enter the Spingold and hope to play for a couple days. The first match is typically a four-way with three advancing, and on the second round a team that's pretty far down the seeds might still draw a team they can upset. Several teams did this in the current Spingold. In the smaller field of the Wagar, a team of aspiring young players is likely to face a top professional team in a head-to-head match in the first round and lose on the first day. This makes it a lot less appealing to enter the event.

[aguahombre]

What is Jill's opinion, you two?

[peachy]

I find it extremely peculiar that there are separate Women's events, and agree with nigel-k that it feels like an insult to Women because gender is not a factor in bridge. I haven't really researched the history of why this is so if someone knows, share please how it all began and why the separate events still exist!

[TimG]

Perhaps one reason that the Wagar is not as popular as it once was is that there are far fewer Women's events at sectionals and regionals. So, there's not much incentive to form regular teams (or pairs) of women.

The ACBL has reason to keep the Women's events on the NABC calendar because these events are used for seeding/qualification for the USBF Women's Trials to pick teams for World Championship play. Until that changes (or the WBF eliminates Women's events) I expect the events are here to stay.

[cherdanno]

I wish the USBF would award seeding points for teams of women playing open events.

[3for3]

The USBF does reward points for Woman's teams in open events.

[barmar]

But probably winning the Wagar is easier than winning the Spingold -- not because of the gender, but simply because the field is more limited, and the best women have chosen to play in the Spingold instead. So if your goal is to earn seeding points, you have a better chance in the Wagar.

[TimG]

barmar, on Aug 1 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

[T]he best women have chosen to play in the Spingold instead.

Is this true? At least where American women are concerned?

[aguahombre]

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 1 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

[T]he best women have chosen to play in the Spingold instead.

Is this true? At least where American women are concerned?

not in my humble opinion...Kerry will always rank among the best as far as I am concerned......and Lynn, and etc, etc, etc.

[the hog]

nigel_k, on Aug 1 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

Avoiding giving offence has never been one of my strengths so here goes:

I think it borders on insulting to even have womens' events. There is no reason that women can't compete and win against men, and plenty of women have done so. It's not athletics.

The womens' events actually hold women back. If there were special events only for left-handers and anyone left handed was encouraged to play in those events, over time the effect would be that the standard of the top right handed players would increase relative to the left handed players just because they would be swimming in a larger talent pool.

If top women players refuse to enter the Wagar they are making the right choice.

I strongly agree with this view. That was also the view held by Jill Blanchard in her law suit.

[Lobowolf]

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 1 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

Avoiding giving offence has never been one of my strengths so here goes:

I think it borders on insulting to even have womens' events. There is no reason that women can't compete and win against men, and plenty of women have done so. It's not athletics.

The womens' events actually hold women back. If there were special events only for left-handers and anyone left handed was encouraged to play in those events, over time the effect would be that the standard of the top right handed players would increase relative to the left handed players just because they would be swimming in a larger talent pool.

If top women players refuse to enter the Wagar they are making the right choice.

I strongly agree with this view. That was also the view held by Jill Blanchard in her law suit.

Oh, the irony.

[jjbrr]

Do those who feel that Women's only events are unnecessary feel the same way about Seniors events?

[TylerE]

Yes, but for entirely seperate reasons. When ~90% of the membership qualifies as senior, what's the point? If the age limit was higher... 70 or even 75, then it might have a point.

[nigel_k]

I agree with Tyler about the Seniors.

At some point your brain starts to slow down. Hamman is still world class but he is coming off a previously godlike skill level. With so many older players and the biological fact of their brains slowing down, it's right to have a separate category for them. But the age limit should be higher.

The same doesn't apply to women.

[the hog]

Lobowolf, on Aug 2 2009, 09:02 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 1 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

Avoiding giving offence has never been one of my strengths so here goes:

I think it borders on insulting to even have womens' events. There is no reason that women can't compete and win against men, and plenty of women have done so. It's not athletics.

The womens' events actually hold women back. If there were special events only for left-handers and anyone left handed was encouraged to play in those events, over time the effect would be that the standard of the top right handed players would increase relative to the left handed players just because they would be swimming in a larger talent pool.

If top women players refuse to enter the Wagar they are making the right choice.

I strongly agree with this view. That was also the view held by Jill Blanchard in her law suit.

Oh, the irony.

I don't understand this comment. Can you explain it please?

[NickRW]

I think I tend to agree with the comments in this thread. But I note that most of the posters appear to be men - what do women actually think? Or should we take it that the lack of entries - and the lack of comment here - means that they generally agree too?

Nick

[TimG]

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 2 2009, 09:02 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 1 2009, 07:07 AM, said:

Avoiding giving offence has never been one of my strengths so here goes:

I think it borders on insulting to even have womens' events. There is no reason that women can't compete and win against men, and plenty of women have done so. It's not athletics.

The womens' events actually hold women back. If there were special events only for left-handers and anyone left handed was encouraged to play in those events, over time the effect would be that the standard of the top right handed players would increase relative to the left handed players just because they would be swimming in a larger talent pool.

If top women players refuse to enter the Wagar they are making the right choice.

I strongly agree with this view. That was also the view held by Jill Blanchard in her law suit.

Oh, the irony.

I don't understand this comment. Can you explain it please?

Jill Blanchard is now Jill Levin and has many victories in...women's bridge. I think that includes a World Championship in a Women's event.