[barmar]

Fair or not, humans tend to categorize people. No matter what he accomplishes during his tenure, I predict that Obama will forever be remembered most for being the first African-American President. There shouldn't be a stigma attached to this. And the habit of categorization is why Debbie's accomplishments were frequently qualified with reference to her sex. This will persist as long as the top ranks of players are dominated by men.

I think it may be time to kill the NABC+ women's events. Not because they're unworthy, but simply because they're not very popular. This year only 14 teams entered the Wagar.

Also, I don't think the issue is specific to gender-specific events. Everything that has been said about masterpoint awards for women's events seems also to apply to senior events. Although the demographics of ACBL membership are such that most of the entrants in the open events are eligible for the senior events, I think it's still safe to say that it's a less competitive field because the most difficult opponents choose to play in the concurrent open event.

Of course, what this all really boils down to is that masterpoints are a really lousy measure of achievement, even when you restrict them to recent awards in top flight events. ACBL needs to come up with the ranking system that they've supposedly been working on for the past several years.

[TimG]

barmar, on Dec 21 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

I think it's still safe to say that it's a less competitive field because the most difficult opponents choose to play in the concurrent open event.

I think this really boils down to "concurrent". It doesn't really matter whether it is Open v Mixed, Open v Women's or Reisinger v NA Swiss.

Quote

ACBL needs to come up with the ranking system that they've supposedly been working on for the past several years.

Did you notice that the new President has said that a rating system will be amongst his priorities? Tell him you think that's a great idea when you see him in Newton. I know I plan to.

[awm]

As a slightly off-topic point, I wonder why the ACBL seems to favor concurrent starts for so many NABC+ events. This seems to frequently create "second tier" events. It also means that those people knocked out in one NABC+ event frequently have to wait for the next one to start. Some examples that seem particularly bad:

(1) The national swiss that starts concurrent to the Reisinger. Why not have a two-day swiss starting on day two of the Reisinger, so it could include those top teams who failed to make the second day on the biggest stage? This would presumably make the swiss field stronger, and would make those teams who lost in the Reisinger happier (in many cases the tournament is effectively over for these teams, since there are no more NABC+ events). It might even raise more entry fees for ACBL.

(2) The IMP pairs which now starts concurrent to the Platinum Pairs. Assuming that the Platinum Pairs draws the strongest players (it's supposed to be a premier event, but time will tell) this makes the IMP pairs field one of the weakest NABC+ events. Since the IMP pairs has never been more than two days, why not start it on day two of the Platinum Pairs so the people who fail to qualify can play in the IMP pairs instead? Again, this strengthens the weaker event and might make marginally more money for ACBL (likely the losers of Platinum Pairs are sticking around anyway, but this way they play NABC+ entry fees rather than taking a day or two off or playing regional events).

If the women's events in the fall were a day "out of step" with the open events, it wouldn't prevent the female pros from playing in them, nor would it have much impact on all-female pairs who go with the plan of playing in the women's events. However, it would encourage some of the all-female pairs to try to open NABC+ events when they otherwise wouldn't, figuring that if they fail to qualify they can always play the women's event starting the next day.

[mike777]

Since they have been on this schedule for quite awhile they must have their reasons, whatever..

[xcurt]

awm, on Dec 21 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

[cogent points about starting secondary NABC+ events the day after a primary NABC+ event starts]

I do not expect this to happen, because the ACBL is forever tinkering with the masterpoint formulas to try to keep all constituencies happy with their chances to win points, relative to the points on offer to other constituencies. Since a fundamentally fair MP system is impossible, this tinkering will continue ad infinitum. It's not that different from our (US) endless tinkering with the tax code.

The biggest problem with the MP system is that MPs won is dominated by how much you play. This immediately renders MPs useless for comparing abilities of anyone who isn't a pro and doesn't play bridge essentially to the exclusion of everything else. For example, Meckstroth won player of the decade with something like 7200 platinum points. Since he presumably intended to play all days of all 30 NABCs, he averaged about 7200/30*10*2 or about 12 PPs per NABC+ session. My average over the parts of two NABCs I played "seriously" this decade is about 3 PPs per NABC+ session. Sure Jeff is (a lot) better than me, but if you simply used PPs as a gauge of this you would seriously overestimate the ability gap.

[awm]

Likely masterpoints are a lost cause. I do believe that it's possible to take some simple steps which would allow masterpoints to better reflect accomplishment (obviously they will not reflect "skill level" as long as they only accumulate, but the point award for a particular event could reflect the difficulty of winning). However, I see no real evidence that ACBL wants to make these kinds of changes.

My concern is more with the value of a national championship, which all NABC+ events are considered to be. Certainly not all championship events are created equal, but it seems to me that there should be a minimum standard in terms of the number of players, skill level of players, and existence of concurrent events in order for an event to be considered a national championship. In addition to the aforementioned national swiss that starts the same day as Reisinger, and the IMP pairs that start the same day as Platinum Pairs, one could question the following open events:

(1) The Wernher pairs which starts day two of the Spingold/Wagar/Senior Swiss. This might not be so bad if the Spingold was eliminating roughly half the field on day one, but with the number of byes in most recent years the Wernher is the weakest NABC+ event on the schedule (possible exception of the IMP pairs under the new scheduling).
(2) The Fast Pairs and Mixed BAM, which are not only concurrent but run parallel to the middle rounds of the Spingold. Having one NABC+ event with that start date seems okay, but two is overboard.

[mrdct]

junyi_zhu, on Dec 21 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

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.

There is a lot more to bridge than intelligence. Intelligence certainly helps and without it you probably won't get very far in the sport, but in my experience the more intangible "card sense" is the factor that takes players to that higher echelon.

I've got no idea where one gets "card sense" from, but I think it's quite likely that genetics has something to do with it, so if the Y chromosome happens to be involved; hey presto there is a potential rational basis for gender-based segregation of our sport.

[Jlall]

mrdct, on Dec 21 2009, 09:17 PM, said:

Intelligence certainly helps and without it you probably won't get very far in the sport, but in my experience the more intangible "card sense" is the factor that takes players to that higher echelon.

I've got no idea where one gets "card sense" from

mbodell said:

Personally, one thing I've seen when looking at smart people who are no good at card games (hearts, poker, euchre, bridge, spades, etc.) the common factor that I've seen is that they didn't play cards when young.

[barmar]

Bridge is also a social and competitive activity. I think it's well established that the sexes differ in both these areas. Women are generally more social, while men are probably more fierce competitors.

[barmar]

awm, on Dec 21 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

As a slightly off-topic point, I wonder why the ACBL seems to favor concurrent starts for so many NABC+ events. This seems to frequently create "second tier" events. It also means that those people knocked out in one NABC+ event frequently have to wait for the next one to start. Some examples that seem particularly bad:

So many events, so little time? Although getting rid of the women's events would help this problem a bit.

Quote

(1) The national swiss that starts concurrent to the Reisinger. Why not have a two-day swiss starting on day two of the Reisinger, so it could include those top teams who failed to make the second day on the biggest stage?

Isn't there a two-day swiss at one of the other NABCs? They presumably want to have a 3-day swiss to make this one worth more.

[dbdance10]

barmar, on Dec 22 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

Bridge is also a social and competitive activity.  I think it's well established that the sexes differ in both these areas.  Women are generally more social, while men are probably more fierce competitors.

We have no idea whether that's true or not, because we've never even remotely tried to give the sexes an equal playing field. Be cautious when you cite "genetics"--that's often just a cop-out.

[Jlall]

barmar, on Dec 22 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

Isn't there a two-day swiss at one of the other NABCs?  They presumably want to have a 3-day swiss to make this one worth more.

Heh, but it's worth way less. There's a 2 day swiss at the end of both the spring and summer nationals, and they are both extremely tough events since there are either 2 or 4 teams left in the spingold/vandy when they start. There are probably 40 really good teams these that enter each of those events, so 36 or 38 of them are left to play the 2 day swisses.

Compare this to the 3 day swiss which starts the same day as arguably the most prestigious national event that exists, and certainly one of the top 3 most prestigious, and its a much much easier event.

I'm quite sure they have the 3 day swiss to make the Reisinger more prestigious. After all, the goal should be for the main event to be MORE presitigious, not for the secondary event to be more prestigious at the expense of the primary one.

Would the Cavendish have its allure if there was 8 random pairs for every star studded one? Of course not. The Reisinger is not a random crap shoot because it's starts off very small and very tough, and by the end it is one section and insanely tough. If the finals had 5 sections with some pretty good teams who lucked in and had no chance, some good teams that were probably 50/50 to make it with such a big field, and some great teams, it would just be which great teams beat up on the weak ones better, and ultimately which ones got luckier to play the bad teams when they made the stupid mistakes, and which ones got fixed by the stupid mistakes the most.

Sorry to say it, but ultimately every pair game ends up like this except for the blue ribbons, but even that is quite large at the end (3 sections, with basically open entry so there are a ton of random pairs who could get lucky and get into the final breaking average every session).

I am all for everyone being able to play everyone, and I think it's great that that is how everything is set up. However, most teams don't want to play in an event that they have no chance of winning, so making the secondary event start at the same time allows those people to enter that, allows the teams that want to take a shot to enter the main event, and makes the event less random and tougher, which is good for everyone.

For this reason I am also in favor of all the 0-5000 events that exist, except there are a lot of random/bad >5000 players who have no chance of winning also, so I wish it was more like "The Blue Ribbon Pairs" and the "3 day imp pairs" going at the same time, aka an unrestricted secondary event.

Again, if this were to happen, the main events need to award a different color point, and be categorized as a main event. Right now the Reisinger/NA swiss are the only combo of open national events that go on at the same time, I'm happy to see the Platinum Pairs/imp pairs will be the same way, and expect it to easily surpass the Blue Ribbons as the most prestigious pair game in the world, and that is BECAUSE of the existence of the imp pairs. It's good for everyone.

[Mbodell]

Jlall, on Dec 21 2009, 10:23 PM, said:

For this reason I am also in favor of all the 0-5000 events that exist, except there are a lot of random/bad >5000 players who have no chance of winning also, so I wish it was more like "The Blue Ribbon Pairs" and the "3 day imp pairs" going at the same time, aka an unrestricted secondary event.

For various definitions of "random/bad", maybe. I mean there are fewer than 2000 people with >5000. So sure, some reasonable percentage will not have much of a chance to win an open national event without sponsorship, but there can't be that many that would actually be bad as opposed to merely less than expert players.

I agree that the double open events makes the premier events more prestigious. The other thing that the Reisinger has going for it is the 2 day Open BAM earlier in the nationals. For many of us that gives us a chance to play a "national BAM" and then feel satisfied playing the 3-day swiss rather than trying the Reisinger.

And re the mini- and mirco- events I know as a non-expert improving player I like being able to play a mix of the best open events where there is the best competition and most learning and the limited national events (NAP, GNT, 0-1500, 0-5000, red ribbons) where one can challenge for winning the event. It is interesting that next year the 0-5000 blue ribbons are going to 3 day to match the full blues.

[Jlall]

Mbodell, on Dec 22 2009, 02:39 AM, said:

For various definitions of "random/bad", maybe. I mean there are fewer than 2000 people with >5000. So sure, some reasonable percentage will not have much of a chance to win an open national event without sponsorship, but there can't be that many that would actually be bad as opposed to merely less than expert players.

Yes this was not the most polite way to say it. Obviously I meant it in the context of "have no chance to win the event." Many players are good and have no chance to win the blue ribbon pairs.

My point is simply that a side open event is great for these people who want to play in a national, and want to have a chance to win. It is also great for the people in the blue ribbon who either have a chance to win, or simply want to try to compete with the best and see how they do, despite having no chance to win. I don't see how it is beneficial to ANYONE to force these players to play in the main event.

[MarkDean]

I agree about making the prestigous events as strong as possible. I feel this way even as a player who has no chance to win the Reisinger or the Blue Ribbons. Even at the regional level, I much prefer A/X and B/C/D events to having straitified or stratiflighted or whatever events.

I used to not care about masterpoints, but the introduction of the platinum pairs has changed things. As a player who does not get to play too many national events and enjoys playing in the tough ones, I do feel the rewards are not equitable. In San Francisco, we made it to the last day of the blue ribbons and the second day of the reisinger and got essentially zero platinum points: those certainly felt like accomplishments which should count toward being able to play in the platinum pairs.

[TimG]

[quote name='Jlall' date='Dec 22 2009, 01:23 AM'] [quote name='barmar' date='Dec 22 2009, 12:43 AM']Compare this to the 3 day swiss which starts the same day as arguably the most prestigious national event that exists, and certainly one of the top 3 most prestigious, and its a much much easier event.

I'm quite sure they have the 3 day swiss to make the Reisinger more prestigious. After all, the goal should be for the main event to be MORE presitigious, not for the secondary event to be more prestigious at the expense of the primary one.

Would the Cavendish have its allure if there was 8 random pairs for every star studded one? Of course not. The Reisinger is not a random crap shoot because it's starts off very small and very tough, and by the end it is one section and insanely tough. If the finals had 5 sections with some pretty good teams who lucked in and had no chance, some good teams that were probably 50/50 to make it with such a big field, and some great teams, it would just be which great teams beat up on the weak ones better, and ultimately which ones got luckier to play the bad teams when they made the stupid mistakes, and which ones got fixed by the stupid mistakes the most.

Sorry to say it, but ultimately every pair game ends up like this except for the blue ribbons, but even that is quite large at the end (3 sections, with basically open entry so there are a ton of random pairs who could get lucky and get into the final breaking average every session). [/quote]
Perhaps the answer is not to siphon off players into "secondary" events that start at the same time but rather to add a day to the Blue Ribbon Pairs and Reisinger. Then the "secondary" events could start on Day 2 or Day 3 of the "premier" events. This might get you down to a one section final in the Blue Ribbon and would allow the Reisinger to accommodate more entries without making deep cuts or moving away from a one section final.

[JanM]

TimG, on Dec 22 2009, 05:12 AM, said:

Perhaps the answer is not to siphon off players into "secondary" events that start at the same time but rather to add a day to the Blue Ribbon Pairs and Reisinger.  Then the "secondary" events could start on Day 2 or Day 3 of the "premier" events.  This might get you down to a one section final in the Blue Ribbon and would allow the Reisinger to accommodate more entries without making deep cuts or moving away from a one section final.

You're right, but the NABC schedule is already incredibly "crowded." If you added a day to the BRP or Reisinger you'd make it even more difficult to schedule things.

Personally, as someone who has no chance of winning the Reisinger, it's still probably my favorite event (if only I could convince partners and teammates of that). I love the fact that the NAS is opposite the Reisinger, because it means that the Reisinger field, even the first day, is about the best NABC field you can find (and I don't mean for the first day - I'd happily bet on the players in the first day of the Reisinger against the players in the final day of the BRP). So if what you enjoy is playing against the best, you can do that by entering the Reisinger. If you play well and are lucky, you can make the second day and play in an even better field, and if a miracle happens and you make the third day...

The Vanderbilt & Spingold aren't the same, at least for someone like me, who's been around for a while and won some things, (it would be the same for someone who plays a lot). I'm seeded somewhere in the middle of the field, so in order to play a match against a top-seeded team I probably need to win at least two and often 3 matches.

As for the Women's events, I have mixed feelings - I don't happen to like them, but I don't see why those who do shouldn't be entitled to have them. That's the same way I feel about the mini-Spingolds, btw - if I were eligible for them, I wouldn't want to play in them, but I don't see any harm in them and they make the "main event" smaller, which IMO is a good thing. The Open BAM and whatever the 2 day Open pair event at the beginning of the Fall NABC is called are probably stronger because the people who want to play in the Women's events can do so. Certainly they are stronger because of the concurrent Senior KO. I don't much care about masterpoints and I know that they aren't a good measure of ability, so I don't have an opinion about the numbers awarded for the different events. Surely everyone knows that the "real" events (essentially Justin's list) are under-rewarded in terms of masterpoints. That's why for Trials byes and seeding, there is a whole separate schedule of Positioning Points that are awarded only for the Vanderbilt, Spingold & Reisinger. But most of the players who play in the "real" events don't care about masterpoints, so it doesn't matter.

Having attended a lot of Women's committee meetings, I know the argument for more masterpoints than seems right given the number of players who enter those events. It is that the top women mostly play in the Women's events (that's certainly true for teams, and pretty true for pairs - Sabine & Daniela are an exception. I remember counting the number of women pairs in the first day of the first Fall Open pair event one year and comparing it to the third day of the BRP - I suppose it was distorted by the fact that I was counting myself, but the number was about the same, I don't remember how many any more, but about 3).

If you want to do something about the Women's events, maybe one place to start would be with the WBF, which is about to add a "Girls" event to the Junior Championships, perpetuating the division by sexes. So long as there are Women's World Championships, it's going to be tough to change the ACBL Women's events. I've even had people argue that we need to encourage more women to play in the NABC Women's events in order to prepare them for the World Women's events or we'll lose our strong position in those events. I happen to disagree with that argument, but it's definitely out there.

[awm]

The argument for the "Girls" event is different from the argument for women's events in general, and in fact I think the "Girls" event is a very good idea.

Junior bridge is extremely male-dominated. Looking at the field in the world juniors, most teams are all male and virtually none have more than one woman. There are very few young women playing bridge in the US, especially if we don't count the Swedish juniors (they are, after all, Swedish). It is also worth mentioning that the Swedish juniors got their start by playing in the European "Girls" event (subsequently they have played in a wide range of open events).

The lack of young female bridge players is a serious problem. While I don't believe that women are "inherently worse at bridge than men," I do believe that a huge reason that most of the top open players are male is that the best bridge players usually start quite young, and the folks in their teens and 20s who are playing a lot of bridge are overwhelmingly male.

Of course, the attitudes of (many of) the young men towards the young women (i.e. viewing them as "groupies" rather than as serious bridge players) doesn't help, and the fact that these attitudes seem to be encouraged rather than stomped out by some of the juniors' "coaches" is even worse... but giving the young women their own event will be a substantial step forward.

[TimG]

JanM, on Dec 22 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

You're right, but the NABC schedule is already incredibly "crowded." If you added a day to the BRP or Reisinger you'd make it even more difficult to schedule things.

It was my intention to make a suggestion for improving the events without regard for scheduling; it is my opinion that the schedule should be worked to fit the premier events rather than the premier events designed to fit the scheduled. If this means losing one of the "secondary" events, so be it.

[jonottawa]

While we're at it, might want to revisit the idea of allowing a CWTC win to count as your 'national win' for Grand Life Master eligibility.

As to the Player of the Year race, I think the problem could be solved by simply changing the awards for all non-top-tier national events from 100% platinum to 50%gold-50% platinum.

As to the inflated masterpoint awards for certain restricted events, points schmoints, shrug. I'm with Jan on this and gimping their awards would probably kill the events entirely in some cases.