Posted 2005-August-26, 15:01
Is Bridge cool? Cool to whom?
Some thoughts from the Peanut Gallery:
This discussion about males, females and bridge ability needs to be discussed and kept out of the closet because it has persisted for at least 40 years (the length of time since I began playing bridge) and, probably, much longer. Let me preface this by stating that I strongly take exception to any premise stating or suggesting that females are less capable of playing this game than males. I have had my arse kicked viciously and competently by many women bridge players over the years. I do not believe any differences between male and female players to be due to factors such as cognition, potential, learning styles (if such things truly exist in most cases), or genetics. Yet, there is a long history of males reportedly having more success at top-level competition and in bridge-related literature. "Why" is a question very much deserving of further examination.
I just quickly looked throught a classic bridge book written by Fred L. Karpin (copyright 1968) titled "Winning Play in Tournament and Duplicate Bridge", and added up the number of famous/ classic hands that he reported where the
player(s) who made the key (or lesson) play(s) were male and how many were females. [There were many hands where the identities of the players were not reported, and there were some where both a male and a female were involved.] Most of the reported deals came from the 1930's, '40's, and 50's. Allowing for error of measurement (me), the number of hands where the key player(s) was/were male was approximately 55 where-as the number of hands where they were female was approximately 16, roughly a 3:1 ratio. In some cases, males and females were both involved, and several famous players were involved in multiple hands. I did this because I recalled a deal that Karpin reported that was reportedly played many years ago by Mary Jane Farrell (who, I have been told, still plays professionally and teaches in the L.A. area). The author concluded the report of the hand by stating that "I am certain that even the most ardent pro-male-chauvinist- who is convinced that men are infinitely superior to women as bridgeplayers- would be willing to say that Mary Jane played the hand "like a man"." Interesting comment IMO. Such are some of the histories and biases that have existed regarding male versus female bridge players over time. Also, and I don't have the statistics, an important issue IMO is the ratio of males to females (or vice versa) who were playing bridge competitively at the times when these classic hands were played.
At the 1970 Summer NABCs in Boston, we put on a play (intended to be a comedy, not a flop) about the topic of whether or not males were better bridge players than females based on a mock team game (one team all male, one all female). This was a time of considerable societal change, to say the least, and this was a very hot topic. We neatly wiggled out of it by having the match end in a tie...we were so clever! (If any of the readers actually were there and saw this play, let me know: I had a key role in the play.) Even back then it seemed to me on the surface (observation) that the majority of younger players (under 30) and the vast majority of very fine players in/ around the Boston area (ex. Bramley, Jacobus, Sion, et. al.) were males, some attending top-flight colleges in the area (Harvard/MIT). There were many non-junior top-flight women players, but the numbers, when compared to males, seemed to be lower. There were also a few extremely good married couples. The point of this is that, to some degree, before a number of the forum members were born, the issue of male versus female bridge players might have been, at least in part, impacted by numbers. (Role definitions, although relatively "traditional", were also starting to change as more opportunities for women were emerging.) Based upon some earlier posts, it appears that there continues to be some continuation of some of the barriers and beliefs about this male-female issue that female bridge players still experience, although it is now a very different world and, hopefully, many changes have also occured.
I am dismayed at the reported differences in treatment or attitudes toward junior females that has been discussed. How much of this is related to some above-mentioned factors is unclear. IMO, it might be interesting if not very important to compare and contrast the levels of bridge-related knowledge and skills that males and females had prior to attending these junior programs/ camps, and the impact that any differences might have on outcome (sort of like, in education, a "pre-test/post-test" model.).
I have some difficulties with reports or studies that conclude that females are less capable on various visual-spatial abilities than are males. Males might or might not tend to score higher on current measures of visual-spatial abilities or math, but this tells you nothing about causation. There are multiple intervening variables including experience, expectations, opportunities to advance in areas that emphasize such skills, role expectations, societal norms, etc., etc. So, i would be cautious about correlating any supposed genetic or cognitive factors with potential for success at bridge. And, as far as i know, there are not any significant differences between males and females in terms of memory store potential, and memory skills can be taught!.
But, if enough females feel that they are experiencing/ receiving less confident and encouraging messages, both verbal and nonverbal, from junior programs (or any programs including the acbl), then this is an issue that needs to be made very clear to those who run as well as those who sponsor these programs. And if, by some chance, research suggests that there might be some differences between males and females in terms of knowledge base/ experience/ skill levels upon beginning such programs (for whatever reasons), then these issues, too, need to be addressed. Other factors being equal (the great intervening variable), I know of no reason why there should be such a difference between success of male and female players, including juniors.
One factor that might be impacting on junior bridge and attendance in general could be economic, the cost to play. Card fees have, at least, tripled from when I started playing. The ability of many younger players to travel significant distances to play was and might still be limited except, perhaps, for some more fortunate players. Access to quality instruction is not inexpensive although access to literature and basic training is now more available thanks to the internet and programs such as LTPB. What is the target populations for this "Bridge is Cool" campaign? How attractive is bridge going to be to kids coming from less fortunate, if not inner city, backgrounds given the basic economics unless methods to make the game more available and meaningful to more kids are improved and role models increased? I don't know what the situation is on college campuses: I'll let richard address that. But, there are a whole lot of factors including target populations that the promoters of the game need to start looking at if they don't want the numbers of people playing the game and the numbers of teens and 20-somethings playing the game to significantly diminish.
"That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!"
Help
