[glen]

TimG, on Dec 20 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

I think you should eliminate all cross qualification; I don't think Mixed should count toward Women's.

For mixed they could used mixed up points, such as Plattitanium.

[PrecisionL]

maggieb, on Dec 19 2009, 11:47 PM, said:

Basically even bracket 1 at tough regionals (maybe Gatlinburg and a few others are exceptions) don't really compare to the level of competition that you can get in the late stages of a national event. For many people, nationals are one of the only times of the year that they can expect to play top quality bridge.

Gatlinburg is NOT an exception! I have played in Gatlinburg brackets 5 - 7, have you not noticed the 60,000 minimum Team MP to get in bracket 1.

I have also missed playing against Rodwell & Cheek's team in the Richmond Regional 2 years ago because he lost in the KO Bracket 1 semi-final.

Larry

And the limit of MP was about 60 this year for a win in Gatlinburg's Bracket 1.

Gatlinburg 2009
Tues-Wed KO Bkt 1 15 Tables (28 Brackets)
MPs Rank Names
60.43 1 Andrew Rosenthal - Aaron Silverstein - Joe Grue, New York NY; Curtis Cheek, Las Vegas NV
42.30 2 John Onstott - Iype Koshy, New Orleans LA; Jim Krekorian, New York NY; Garey Hayden, Tucson AZ
24.17 3/4 Jim Mahaffey, Winter Park FL; Gary Cohler, Miami FL; Michael Rosenberg, New Rochelle NY; Michael Seamon, Hollywood FL; Jacek Pszczola, Chapel Hill NC; Sam Lev, New York NY
24.17 3/4 John Russell, North Barringto IL; Barry Harper, Regina SK; Bruce Parent-Norman Coombs, Brookville IN

Wed-Thurs KO Bkt 1 (28 Brackets)
16 Tables
MPs Rank Names
59.60 1 Robert Hampton, Blythewood SC; Gavin Wolpert, Singer Island FL; John Hurd, New York NY; Joel Wooldridge, Williamsville NY; Steve Weinstein, Andes NY; Robert Levin, Bronx NY

41.72 2 Carolyn Lynch, Scottsdale AZ; Mike Passell, Las Vegas NV; Jeff Meckstroth, Tampa FL; Eric Rodwell, Clearwater Bch FL; Cezary Balicki, Smolec Poland; Adam Zmudzinski, Katowice 40-479 Poland

Thu-Fri KO Bkt 1 (25 Brackets)
16 Tables
MPs Rank Names
61.46 1 Jim Mahaffey, Winter Park FL; Gary Cohler, Miami FL; Michael Rosenberg, New Rochelle NY; Sam Lev, New York NY; Michael Seamon, Hollywood FL; Jacek Pszczola, Chapel Hill NC

43.02 2 Claude Vogel, Chicago IL; George Jacobs, Hinsdale IL; Chris Compton, Dallas TX; Ron Smith, San Francisco CA

[fred]

Some random thoughts that touch upon points that others have mentioned:

1. This year in San Diego I found myself caring about how many masterpoints I won for the first time in the 25+ years I have been an ACBL member. The reason is that I had a real chance to be "Player of the Year". Needless to say, I agree with Justin that this is a meaningful contest.

2. I finished 10th in the first (Open) pairs event in San Diego while my wife, Sheri, finished 6th in the Women's Pairs that was run at the same time. Before the next day's Daily Bulletin came out, we found it amusing to speculate as to which of our achievements was "better" (based on number of masterpoints won). It turns out Sheri's was (by about 3 Platinum Points if I recall correctly). Sheri thought this was absurd and I can't say I disagree with her.

3. I once played in a knockout in Gatlinburg when all 4 teams in the semi-finals were so strong that nobody would be even remotely surprised if any one of these teams won an event like the Spingold. Probably this was an extremely unusual state of affairs - at the time it seemed quite remarkable.

4. IMO the Reisinger is a really great event. Play in it if you get the chance!

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[debrose]

I did read Justin's entire post, and I do not disagree with his basic premises, as summarized at the end. A couple of the details which I question:

What if Rose Meltzer did not wish for her rank as a "woman player" to be acknowledged? Perhaps she feels her great accomplishments as a bridge player are even more meaningful without that reference - or maybe it just has no relevance.

Personally, when I used to play exclusively in open events, I cringed when people described me in terms of how good a "woman player" I was. At the time I felt there was no more justification for this than discussing who was the "best left-handed player", or best "Chinese-American player", etc. Yes, there existed separate women's events, but I didn't play in them. I really wanted a chance to be evaluated as "a bridge player", not "a woman player", and I found it very frustrating when I learned that for the most part I had no chance of that happening. We have no objective ranking system, and most people would always think of me as a "woman player."

Once I started playing in women's events, I certainly could no longer dispute the characterization. Of course I'd already resigned myself to the fact that I was going to be thought of as a "woman player" whether I played in those events or not. However, if I ever have a year in which I play exclusively in open premium events at the Nationals, I for one will prefer to have whatever "titanium point" rank I achieve acknowledged without reference to the fact that I was born female.

Justin's suggestion regarding mixed points counting towards the women's ranking, reminded me of something I recently learned. In the WBF, points earned in mixed events count for a man toward his open ranking, while for a woman they count toward her women's ranking. This is relevant to me in that I am a "Women's Grand Master", but in the open not even a "World Master." From my reading of the conditions of contest, this would mean I couldn't enter a semi-final or final round of the World Open Pairs with a partner who had been eliminated from the Rosenblum too late to play the qualifying round. If I continue to play only WBF women's and mixed events, I'll have no opportunity to earn open points, while the man in my mixed partnership will get those points for the same achievement. This also seems wrong for a woman who does not participate in WBF women's events - only open or mixed. Shouldn't she be able to choose to have her mixed points count the same way they do for her male partner? I confess, I have not appealed to the WBF on this, and for all I know such a request would be readily granted.

[fred]

debrose, on Dec 20 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

Personally, when I used to play exclusively in open events, I cringed when people described me in terms of how good a "woman player" I was.

I am not sure if this will make you feel any better, but in 1991 I thought you were the best "junior player" in the world

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[debrose]

Thank you, Fred. That is, and always has been, kind of you to say. When I say "for the most part" there was never any chance of my being considered as just a bridge player, you are always one of the exceptions I think of.

[eyhung]

I strongly agree with Justin's post about recategorizing women's event points but I didn't post about it earlier because I felt writing about it would sound like sour grapes from a male player who saw his female friends getting more platinum points for smaller, lesser events. But if there is truly enough buy-in from great players such as debrose, fred, and Justin then maybe we should lobby our BoD representatives to make this change.

How about for women's events, rose points?

Also, titanium is far more common and cheap than platinum. Diamond points would be thematic, but then you'd have to rename diamond life master.

[nigel_k]

Can't this all be solved by not having separate women's events and instead having separate prizes for the top all-woman pairs or teams?

[eyhung]

Incidentally, here are the relative "degrees of difficulty" for the recent NABC pair events as computed by Power Rankings
(http://www.colorados...idge.com/pr.htm):

Nail LM Pairs 1st day : 8-9
Nail 2nd day : 10.5-11

Women's LM Pairs 1st day : 5.9-7
Women's LM Pairs 2nd day : 7.8-8.2

0-5000 Blue Ribbons 1st day : 4-5
0-5000 Blue Ribbons 2nd day : 6-7

Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st day : 8.9-10.5
Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd day : 11.7-12
Blue Ribbon Pairs 3rd day : 12.8-13.5

To clarify, if you play in an event with 5 degree of difficulty, you expect to do 5% better than if you played in an event with 10 degree of difficulty.

[Jlall]

Hi Debbie,

Nice post. WRT players opting not to be placed on a list in which they are eligible, I think this is legal in the ACBL because I remember someone winning the Richmond trophy (Canadian race) like a million times in a row before opting to not be placed on the list anymore. IMO at the time, I felt like people should not be able to opt out of being on a list. I think the races should be for the fans and for accurate record keeping more than anything, but I respect that that is how the rule is right now, and as such people would be able to opt out from being listed on the women's race.

If you wanted to alter my system, perhaps the women's only race would be for points won in womens events only, with points won in open events counting only towards the regular list.

I'm not sure, I'm sure you would have great insights into how to devise a better system than the one I outlined and I'm sure I overlooked things etc. You have the perspective of being both a great player in general and a woman, so I'm sure you in particular would understand some of the issues that would have to be addressed.

To Debbie and others who said something about the mixed and how it should count, I would be open to pretty much anything wrt that, I honestly didn't think it through very much and it seems murky. The WBFs system does seem messed up based on what Debbie said.

[dbdance10]

I think the basic problem is that very few women play bridge at the level of the most elite men.

Rather than accept this situation as somehow inevitable or biologically predetermined, the ACBL should do everything in its power to encourage more young women to enter the game and to make the game itself a more hospitable environment for women players.

The existence of the separate women's events is probably part of the problem. In the events for juniors or seniors or limited masterpoints holders, there is a legitimate basis for presuming that the people who fit the category are "disadvantaged" as players. Juniors necessarily have less experience playing the game. As we grow older beyond a certain age, our mental faculties diminish. And players with fewer masterpoints are by definition in our system presumptively less skilled.

Women are different. There is no account for women's relative lack of success at bridge that does not implicate systemic inequalities: the myth that girls are just "bad at math" that keeps us out of the quantitative fields, or the one that we "don't like competition" that discourages us from all things competitive in the first place. Attributing inequalities to biology just distracts us from identifying and fixing the social factors that give rise to those inequalities.

Some of those factors in bridge are within the power of the bridge community to remedy. Think about the verbal abuse that many women endure at the bridge table from their male partners. Women are disproportionately the victims of name-calling and expressions of disgust when they make mistakes--real or imagined. By tolerating such abuse, the community implicitly sanctions the destructive message it contains. The existence of women's events may also be a factor: professional women players are under pressure to compete in the women's events rather than the open events, regardless of their ability. The gender-restricted events also implies that women are inferior, which may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Let's not kid ourselves though. Eliminate the women's events, and the most immediate effect will not be "equality" between men and women in bridge. In the short run, women may nearly disappear from the top ranks of the game. Clients will not realize overnight that their previous biases against hiring women experts were wrong-headed. It is unrealistic to think that women, long discriminated against both in the game and in society, are now just awaiting the elimination of the separate-but-not-equal events to take their equal place in bridge.

Eliminate the discrimination, sure, but be ready to deal with the underlying causes of the inequality.

[Elianna]

Very well said Dana, thank you.

I have previously stated my experience as a (not so young) female junior in other threads, but, in short, being spoken down to, and having "bridge lessons" that consist of when you should have sex with the male juniors so that they'll play better, is not my idea of creating a level playing field for both genders.

[Phil]

Great thread. Thank you Sathya for starting it, and for fine contributions from Justin, Fred, Debbie and Dana.

I don't think I'd reinvent the wheel here. I would simply dilute some of the 'lesser' NABC events that run concurrent or are segregated with the premier events to a mix of platinum / gold points.

[glen]

The last Super Bowl paid the winners $83K per player, and losers $42K. However, even with the low monetary reward (average salary $1.4M), nobody said "Why bother playing in the Super Bowl?". Its not about the masterpoints.

[Vilgan]

glen, on Dec 20 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

The last Super Bowl paid the winners $83K per player, and losers $42K. However, even with the low monetary reward (average salary $1.4M), nobody said "Why bother playing in the Super Bowl?". Its not about the masterpoints.

Okay, remove all masterpoints from national events. See what happens. Track winner and 2nd place only, with absolutely no reward to any other position.

Spouting nonsense like "its not about the masterpoints" is relevant if the ONLY members of the ACBL are people who have a solid chance at winning a national event. For those who don't fall in this category, platinum points are a good motivator in the interim as they get better. Heck, even if they never win an event.. but they have a thousand platinum kicking around.. that's still a solid accomplishment imo.

[glen]

Vilgan, on Dec 20 2009, 11:44 PM, said:

Okay, remove all masterpoints from national events. See what happens. Track winner and 2nd place only, with absolutely no reward to any other position. ...

remove all masterpoints <> Track winner and 2nd place only
remove all masterpoints <> absolutely no reward to any other position

[peachy]

Jlall, on Dec 20 2009, 06:37 AM, said:

Agree, not a politically correct opinion probably but I think it is absurd that womens events get platinum points. I think it absolutely tarnishes the few masterpoint races that should be meaningful like player of the decade and player of the year, ie the races that involve platinum points only.

[snipped lots]

1) Masterpoint races should measure achievement in the field that you play in.
2) Women's events and open events are different fields.
3) Ergo, having the same color of points for women's events and open events is absurd.

That is something I feel strongly about, and tbh I really doubt any top woman player would disagree.

All well said. I would also think it is time to discontinue events where participation requires one (or both) to be of certain gender or age, except juniors. I always thought it was a tainted victory for women when the Mens Pairs was changed to Open Pairs many years ago; logically, at the same time, Womens events should have been discontinued, for consistency in treating each gender equally. That also solves problems in the current ACBL masterpoint award structure that JLall was detailing.

PS. I am a woman.

[paulg]

Scrabble has many similarities with bridge, although it has a smaller playing community.

Scrabble is an open game, with practically no women's events. The majority of tournament players are women, although the higher levels are dominated by men. Women are not subject to abuse or denigration when they make mistakes. They have a fair and equal opportunity to compete at the highest levels.

There is no American woman in the top 40 US players. There are two women in the top 30 in the UK, one of whom, my wife Helen, has been consistently in the top five and the only woman to have won national championships.

Last month, at the 10th World Championships, Helen became the first woman to get a top 10 finish. There were only two women, the other a 17-year-old Malaysian, who had a realistic chance of winning the title whereas there were probably 12 men (in a field of 108).

Aside from a modicum of talent, Helen feels it is down to effort and ability to focus. The top players put in a huge amount of work and, it seems, that more men are willing to do this.

[junyi_zhu]

sathyab, on Dec 20 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

Having just read all the discussion by awards of master points in on-line games and Robot tournaments, I thought I'd vent my own a bit.

When I was riding the Trolley in San Diego from the Petco parking lot toward the end of the tournament, I ran into an acquaintance from the Bay Area who was absolutely thrilled that she had won a lot of Platinum points in Women's BAM. At first I didn't even recognize what the event was. I knew there was a Women's Pairs event that runs concurrently with the Open LM pairs event, but didn't know there was also a Women's BAM concurrent with the Open BAM. I looked her up in the on-line recaps and discovered that each of her team members had won 25 Platinum Points for finishing 13th in the event, with a score of 25 on an average of 27 ! ! (If you had 25 on an average of 26 in the Reisinger it'll probably cost you a dime more to make a phone call from a pay-phone)

There are a lot of teams that enter the Reisinger, knowing that the odds are against their making it to the second day, let alone the finals. They figure that if they all play their best and have some luck they might make it to the semi-finals of what's probably the toughest event in NABC. Any team that misses qualifying for the next day by a narrow margin could most likely qualify easily in the North American Swiss and have a shot at making it to the finals probably. You get very little if you merely make it to the second day of Reisinger, probably a fraction of a Platinum point, if at all. I always used to think that Platinum points meant something, but in the light of what I have recently learnt, there're Platinum Points and there're Platinum Points just like any other kind. Sigh.

I actually think it's a discrimination to have women's events in bridge. Bridge is game of intelligence, and I don't think women are intrinsically less intelligent than men. The current situation in women's event is due to the historic reasons, and attending a lot of women's events may prevent hopeful women players from achieving the top level in open events.

[matmat]

cardsharp, on Dec 21 2009, 04:17 AM, said:

Women are not subject to abuse or denigration when they make mistakes. They have a fair and equal opportunity to compete at the highest levels.

Scrabble is not a partnership game and, as such, has a different dynamic. What I've seen in my limited experience of playing bridge live, most of the unpleasantness happens intra-partnership or intra-team.