[Mbodell]

32519, on 2013-September-21, 23:11, said:

Why are there no women in the Open Event? Is it because -
1. They are not good enough? or
2. They are excluded?

A woman (I think only 1, but there may be more) made the KO stage of the BB. The one I know about is on the Canadian open team.

[Zoe171]

I would like to see Women's events eliminated. Personally, I think it is insulting that these events still exist. I have watched the Chinese women's team on a number of occasions and think they could take on many of the world class open teams.
I have read that some of the well known women in the U.S. like these women's events because it helps them get and retain clients, as professionals. It is definitely true that it is easier to achieve recognition when you arent playing the best of the best. I am encouraged to see more and more women, slowly, edging their way into open events and being successful. Very proud that the Canadian team, (with a female member) made the top 8 in BB 2013. Go Canada**

[barmar]

Zoe171, on 2013-September-23, 17:09, said:

I would like to see Women's events eliminated. Personally, I think it is insulting that these events still exist. I have watched the Chinese women's team on a number of occasions and think they could take on many of the world class open teams.

What's stopping them?

If women stop entering these events, they'll go away by attrition. They're already so poorly attended in ACBL national events that they've decided to stop counting winning the Wagar KO and Machlin Swiss as qualification for Grand Life Master. As a result of this change, I predict these events will be gone within 5 years.

A good question is whether we'll see many women-only teams enter the open events. Probably many of the pairs that have been established within the women's field will stay together, but I'd be surprised if many of the teams would be able to.

[mycroft]

gnasher, on 2013-September-23, 12:07, said:

In those circumstances, I don't think one should ascribe the selectors' decision to sexism or ignorance. If a pair chooses to play in restricted events rather than open events at national level, they can't reasonably expect to be selected for open events at international level.

While I agree with you here, I'm not ascribing anything to sexism. Ignorance, however, I'll cop to.

The selectors are men - show me a case where they're not, (ok, Maria Theresa Lavazza, but that's the "special case" to mark all special cases), and they don't play against the best women, because the events the best women are being hired to win are the events the men can't play in, and they're being held simultaneously with the open event.

You can compete for an open national title, or you can make your money and go home - and it's not like the women sponsors can hire men to play the Women's Teams. I think that berating the women pros for that is like berating the pros for taking the cash (and the much smaller chance of winning the open event) over putting together a sponsorless team and going for The Gold (you'll notice that the team that won the RR consists of just such a team. You'll also notice that they took a tremendous financial risk (including going 4-handed) to do it. My guess is that they thought that putting together a creditable showing (that included "you know, if they'd been able to take a rest, they might have won this") was going to mean a big jump in the calibre of sponsors they could get next year, both in terms of bridge skill and outlay-per-year. They were incredibly lucky (given the no rest) - even with their obvious great skill - and won straight up. I'll also note that you could look a *long time* to find the last time this was attempted).

I blame the system. I also noted that the segregating of Women's events against the "big ones" means that the chance to play in the best competition - if you're being paid to make someone a Champion in the most likely event for the sponsor - goes down, and therefore their skills don't improve as much as they could. That's also the system's fault.

"If you don't like the Conditions of Contest, get them changed."

[chasetb]

I feel I have to slightly clarify my remark. When I made it, I was talking about individuals, and I stand by that remark. When I say World Class, I mean the top 20-25 players in the world. I am not saying that women can't crack that, but because of nature (and currently women's events) there will inevitably be more men. There are a bunch of experts that happen to be women, and quite a few make the top 100.

However, bridge is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL GAME! The best players don't always win, the best partnerships do consistently, and occasionally other good pairs/teams in luck. Sabine may not be World Class by my book, but not only is she no doubt in the top 50, she makes an excellent partner, so the sum is more than the parts. The Gartaganis' aren't WC either, but being very good players, a husband and wife that probably get along great at the bridge table, and knowing their system pat makes them far more formidable than at first glance.

I am glad that Canada placed top 8 and would root for them, but USA 1 is my team and my pick, so good luck mates.

**How about the fact that the teams that finished 1-4 in the Round Robin in the open ALL had negative carryovers going into the Quarter Finals?

[iviehoff]

chasetb, on 2013-September-23, 22:44, said:

**How about the fact that the teams that finished 1-4 in the Round Robin in the open ALL had negative carryovers going into the Quarter Finals?

It has long been the case that successfully navigating the round robin can be more about getting lots of imps out of the weaker teams, which appears to be a different skill from beating the stronger teams. It is quite normal that if you cross VP the top half of the field, you get a very different ordering.
In fact if we cross VP the top 11 in the BB we get
Italy, USA1, England, Monaco, China, Indonesia, Poland, Netherlands
as the leading 8 in that order, which is quite different as an order from the actual result, but includes 7 of the actual qualifiers (who included Canada rather than Indonesia).

In the Venice Cup, the top order isn't disrupted quite as much, it becomes
Netherlands, USA1, France, China, USA2, Poland, Japan, Turkey
again with 7 of the actual qualifiers, though the one to drop out of the top 8 is England (instead of Japan), which perhaps is surprising given their recent level of success : though they are currently a long way ahead of USA1 after 2 rounds of their head to head - but a long way to go yet.

[WellSpyder]

mycroft, on 2013-September-23, 18:35, said:

The selectors are men - show me a case where they're not, (ok, Maria Theresa Lavalla, but that's the "special case" to mark all special cases), and they don't play against the best women, because the events the best women are being hired to win are the events the men can't play in, and they're being held simultaneously with the open event.

The English selectors are chaired by a woman, I believe, and she plays regularly against the best players of both (all?) sexes.

[paulg]

mycroft, on 2013-September-23, 18:35, said:

The selectors are men - show me a case where they're not,

The chairman of the Scotland selectors is a woman. Although the Scotland Seniors playing in the quarter-finals in Bali are all men, at least three women were in contention for the team. But there is not a professional scene, at least in the US sense, in Scotland.

[mycroft]

Hmm, then I was wrong. I apologize.

[gnasher]

mycroft, on 2013-September-24, 09:22, said:

Hmm, then I was wrong.

But not about everything. I agree that the way the ACBL holds important open events in parallel with important women's events is counterproductive. That wouldn't happen in England (or Scotland, I expect), so women players can play in both categories of event if that's what they want to do.

[32519]

Of all the conventions which form part of the modern game, which ones were developed by women?

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on 2013-September-24, 09:41, said:

But not about everything. I agree that the way the ACBL holds important open events in parallel with important women's events is counterproductive. That wouldn't happen in England (or Scotland, I expect), so women players can play in both categories of event if that's what they want to do.

The way the ACBL holds important women's events parallel to important open events is a direct result of the lawsuit filed by the women who wanted to play in the stronger men's events. At the time, there were parallel men's and women's events. A number of women perceived this to be discrimination for one of several reasons - (1) the men's events were generally perceived to be stronger, and they wanted to play in the stronger event; (2) they had regular partners who were men, and they could not play with their regular partners when there were no events available that allowed women to play with men; or (3) some other reason. So, faced with a lawsuit, the ACBL did what the WBF had done for many years - the men's events became open events and the women's events continued to run parallel to them.

By the way, the exception to this rule is the Wagar Women's KO teams which is run parallel to the Spingold Teams. The Wagar Women's KO teams was a completely new event added to run opposite the Spingold Teams. As far as I know, there has never been an NABC+++ Men's KO teams.

So, to say that the way the ACBL holds its important open events parallel to its important women's events is counterproductive, consider the reason.

[Aberlour10]

gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 03:02, said:

Who says these are higher objectives (apart from you)? In any NBO, if you were to ask the ordinary members why they send a team to a World Championship, I expect they would say that the primary objective was to win or to do as well as possible.

Its true, but if you ask all these ordinary members how to achive it.....: Do they agree with paying top pro's using their annual membership fees for it, I would expect the majority says "NO". What to do if there is not a corporate sponsorship?

In Poland the only way to realise it was the agreement with a playing sponsor who pays 5 pro's in Bali. Many people were sceptic about this , but it worked, the sponsor did not bad = playing 176 boards in RR >>>average -0,13 ( many renowned pro's finished a deal worse ) No matter whether they win or loose in SF, to get back into the top four is a great achivement for the team.

[gnasher]

Aberlour10, on 2013-September-25, 18:28, said:

Its true, but if you ask all these ordinary members how to achive it.....: Do they agree with paying top pro's using their annual membership fees for it, I would expect the majority says "NO".

I don't think many NBOs pay their players, in the sense of paying them a fee to play. Many NBOs do pay their player's expenses - entry fee, air fare, accommodation, food, etc. I would expect most ordianry members to be happy with this.

[billw55]

So we will see Italy and Monaco in the final. Any thoughts on this matchup? I was a little surprised how easily Italy brushed aside Poland.

[Aberlour10]

billw55, on 2013-September-27, 08:44, said:

So we will see Italy and Monaco in the final. Any thoughts on this matchup? I was a little surprised how easily Italy brushed aside Poland.

I would favorize Italy cause to their so disciplined performance vs Poland, but all players are tired like in every BB final, hard to foresee how it will influence the play. The things change fast in bridge, it seemed vs Italy played completely different polish team to the squad which has beaten NL by 120 a day before.

[diana_eva]

I found this interview interesting:

http://www.youtube.c...eature=youtu.be

It's in Italian, a reporter from the Italian Federation online magazine went to the Italian squad right after Poland conceded, found Bocchi on his way to the pool. Bocchi said he thinks it's sort of a tradition for Italy to always beat Poland and that the poles play very well against any other team, however never manage to win to Italy. He also said they were very happy to get Poland in the semis bec of this "tradition"

[Aberlour10]

diana_eva, on 2013-September-27, 11:53, said:

I found this interview interesting:

http://www.youtube.c...eature=youtu.be

It's in Italian, a reporter from the Italian Federation online magazine went to the Italian squad right after Poland conceded, found Bocchi on his way to the pool. Bocchi said he thinks it's sort of a tradition for Italy to always beat Poland and that the poles play very well against any other team, however never manage to win to Italy. He also said they were very happy to get Poland in the semis bec of this "tradition"

I dont understand italian language, did he really say this?

I took a look in the history of bridge in the last 20 years especially Bermuda Bowl and
European Team Championships:

The facts are:

Bermuda Bowl
In the knock out round of the BB Poland met Italy only one time in the last 20 years
It was 2003 in Paris - Poland won bronze medal beating Italy by 86- 74
http://www.worldbrid...=PO&qtournid=83
EDITED: N. Bocchi played in this match


I went back to Yokohama 1991, no other knock out matches
In the RRs>>> several polish wins in this period of time

European Championships


There were no knock-out matches for a long period of time
so here RRs last tournaments:

2006 Poland won by 58-35
2008 Poland won by 49-7
2010 Poland lost
2012 Poland won by 42-17

[diana_eva]

Aberlour10, on 2013-September-27, 13:07, said:

I dont understand italian language, did he really say this?

I took a look in the history of bridge in the last 20 years especially Bermuda Bowl and
European Team Championships:

The facts are:

Bermuda Bowl
In the knock out round of the BB Poland met Italy only one time in the last 20 years
It was 2003 in Pars - Poland won bronze medal beating Italy by 86- 74
http://www.worldbrid...=PO&qtournid=83

I went back to Yokohama 1991, no other knock out matches
In the RRs>>> several polish wins in this period of time

European Championships


There were no knock-out matches for a long period of time
so here RRs last tournaments:

2006 Poland won by 58-35
2008 Poland won by 49-7
2010 Poland lost
2012 Poland won by 42-17

Yes he said this - along with other things of course. This is the bit i found interesting, but it's a normal interview with the regular questions and answers.

Edit. Oh, I just saw you bolded some words. The wording is mine, he prob was softer about the whole thing. I'm not that good with Italian language nuances

Edit 2: Asked Queequeg (Italian yellow) to translate it, just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure this is what he is saying.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2013-September-27, 13:31

[billw55]

Aberlour10, on 2013-September-27, 09:17, said:

I would favorize Italy cause to their so disciplined performance vs Poland, but all players are tired like in every BB final, hard to foresee how it will influence the play.

Yes, I also wonder how much the early concession will help the Italians in the fatigue department.