Discussion:
Men's Pairs? Mixed Pairs?
(too old to reply)
s***@gmail.com
2017-01-01 17:06:44 UTC
Permalink
It's been a long while since I played in ACBL tournaments, so I don't even know if there are still Men's Pairs championships. If there are, can you settle a dispute from another message board:

In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"

Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"

Much political correctness strikes me as silly one way or the other, but I did get curious about the precise ACBL rules and couldn't find them on-line.

Septimus
Barry Margolin
2017-01-01 22:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
It's been a long while since I played in ACBL tournaments, so I don't even
know if there are still Men's Pairs championships. If there are, can you
Men's Pairs have not existed for years. All the Men's events have become
open events.
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
No. They were no men allowed, man+woman, no women allowed.

We still have Women's and Mixed, but Men's went away because of threats
of lawsuits.

IANAL, but I suspect a man could have a legitimate case against Women's
Pairs. But men have never been an oppressed class, and have never wanted
to get into the bridge events that they're excluded from.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Adam Lea
2017-01-02 14:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
It's been a long while since I played in ACBL tournaments, so I don't even
know if there are still Men's Pairs championships. If there are, can you
Men's Pairs have not existed for years. All the Men's events have become
open events.
I assume this is the U.S. Here in the UK we have men's, women's and
mixed pairs every year and have done as long as I can remember.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
No. They were no men allowed, man+woman, no women allowed.
We still have Women's and Mixed, but Men's went away because of threats
of lawsuits.
Good grief!!!!!
There really are some extremists out there.
Post by Barry Margolin
IANAL, but I suspect a man could have a legitimate case against Women's
Pairs. But men have never been an oppressed class, and have never wanted
to get into the bridge events that they're excluded from.
Whether men have been an oppressed class historically is irrelevant,
bias is bias whichever group it is directed against. Unless the men's
pairs have been so poorly attended that it is not worth having them*,
then not having a men's pairs but having a women's pairs is illogical.

*This would be the case, as an example, in my county for having a senior
simultaneous pairs but not a junior simultaneous pairs i.e. this would
not be ageism but a case of demand.
p***@infi.net
2017-01-02 21:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Lea
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
It's been a long while since I played in ACBL tournaments, so I don't even
know if there are still Men's Pairs championships. If there are, can you
Men's Pairs have not existed for years. All the Men's events have become
open events.
I assume this is the U.S. Here in the UK we have men's, women's and
mixed pairs every year and have done as long as I can remember.
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
No. They were no men allowed, man+woman, no women allowed.
We still have Women's and Mixed, but Men's went away because of threats
of lawsuits.
Good grief!!!!!
There really are some extremists out there.
Post by Barry Margolin
IANAL, but I suspect a man could have a legitimate case against Women's
Pairs. But men have never been an oppressed class, and have never wanted
to get into the bridge events that they're excluded from.
Whether men have been an oppressed class historically is irrelevant,
bias is bias whichever group it is directed against. Unless the men's
pairs have been so poorly attended that it is not worth having them*,
then not having a men's pairs but having a women's pairs is illogical.
*This would be the case, as an example, in my county for having a senior
simultaneous pairs but not a junior simultaneous pairs i.e. this would
not be ageism but a case of demand.
Having Women's but not Men's pairs is perfectly logical, if most women are presumed incapable of competing against men. Somehow I doubt that was the intention...anyway, it appears the Women's events are going away due to low participation.
Adam Lea
2017-01-02 23:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@infi.net
Having Women's but not Men's pairs is perfectly logical, if most women are presumed incapable of competing against men. Somehow I doubt that was the intention...anyway, it appears the Women's events are going away due to low participation.
Again I fail to see the logic, aside the fact that the presumption is
wrong. If it were correct, and it was somehow deemed wrong for women to
compete against men then the only logical thing to do would have womens
pairs, mixed pairs and mens pairs, hence excluding mens pairs is
ilogical. Whether or not men have their own exclusive events it is
irrelevant as to whether women can compete against them, as there will
be no women in a mens pairs.
Barry Margolin
2017-01-02 23:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Lea
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
It's been a long while since I played in ACBL tournaments, so I don't even
know if there are still Men's Pairs championships. If there are, can you
Men's Pairs have not existed for years. All the Men's events have become
open events.
I assume this is the U.S. Here in the UK we have men's, women's and
mixed pairs every year and have done as long as I can remember.
The first line of the post says "ACBL tournaments", so I was only
talking about this.

There are also no male-only international events.
Post by Adam Lea
Whether men have been an oppressed class historically is irrelevant,
bias is bias whichever group it is directed against. Unless the men's
pairs have been so poorly attended that it is not worth having them*,
then not having a men's pairs but having a women's pairs is illogical.
Even if they might be illegal, no one is going to make a case. No one
gives a damn if they're excluded from something they wouldn't want to
participate in.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Kenny McCormack
2017-01-02 23:23:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <barmar-***@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
...
Post by Barry Margolin
Even if they might be illegal, no one is going to make a case. No one
gives a damn if they're excluded from something they wouldn't want to
participate in.
To put this in context, the actual issue is (was - since it happened back
in 1985, per the LA times link provided here):

1) Jillian Blanchard wanted to qualify for the World Open Pairs - with
her husband as her partner. In particular, as no woman had by then
made it to that event, she wanted to be the first. She (they)
determined that they would have a better chance of getting there if
they could play in one particular Men's Pairs event, entry to which
she (they) was, of course, denied. So, they decided to do what any
other red-blooded American would do, which is to get a lawyer and sue.
2) Given the above, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize it
could just as easily have been the converse. Some guy wanting to
qualify for something and deciding that he should be allowed to
play in a Women's Pairs to get whatever points he could scavenge.

Now, here's what I think is the real solution to the problem. I think the
ACBL should retain its schedule of events but just make it clear that the
requirements aren't really requirements. I.e., not really enforce the law.
I think that would keep most people happy. If a wrong-gendered
person/pair/team wants to enter any given event, they should be allowed to
do so, but most people won't - just because it would make them look silly.
But if you don't care about looking silly, so be it.

I actually think that bridge is a pretty soft game already, in terms of
laws - basically people obey the laws because it is the right thing to do,
not because the authorities are very serious about enforcing them. I know
of many examples of this from my bridge experience. One good example was a
team that insisted on playing the Flight C GNTs, even though they were
clearly way over the limit in MPs. For reasons I won't go into here, the
authorities were unable to disallow it, but everybody knew what was going on.

The point is - if you want to enter a Flight C event (in such circumstances),
you're going to look silly (as this team did), but if you're willing to
look silly, so be it.
--
Pensacola - the thinking man's drink.
Kenny McCormack
2017-01-02 19:02:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <barmar-***@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <***@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
...
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
No. They were no men allowed, man+woman, no women allowed.
Same thing. I can't believe you're nitpicking this. Although, I suppose
it would have been clearer if OP had written "two men required".
Post by Barry Margolin
We still have Women's and Mixed, but Men's went away because of threats
of lawsuits.
Really? That seems hard to believe. Any chance of a cite?

Who would persue such a cause of action (serious question) ?
--
The book "1984" used to be a cautionary tale;
Now it is a "how-to" manual.
jonathan23
2017-01-02 19:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenny McCormack
...
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two
men
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by s***@gmail.com
allowed?"
No. They were no men allowed, man+woman, no women allowed.
Same thing. I can't believe you're nitpicking this. Although, I suppose
it would have been clearer if OP had written "two men required".
Post by Barry Margolin
We still have Women's and Mixed, but Men's went away because of threats
of lawsuits.
Really? That seems hard to believe. Any chance of a cite?
Here's something from the LA Times from when the lawsuit was a "thing" in the 1980s:

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-02-26/local/me-25028_1_suit-claims
--
Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA
Will in New Haven
2017-01-04 04:25:12 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
jogs
2017-01-02 15:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
Much political correctness strikes me as silly one way or the other, but I did get curious about the precise ACBL rules and couldn't find them on-line.
Septimus
There was a lawsuit. Political correctness by force.
Fred.
2017-01-03 13:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jogs
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
Much political correctness strikes me as silly one way or the other, but I did get curious about the precise ACBL rules and couldn't find them on-line.
Septimus
There was a lawsuit. Political correctness by force.
The claim was not that the men only events were offensive
to women, but that these events discriminated against them.

Fred.
Adam Lea
2017-01-03 23:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred.
Post by jogs
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
Much political correctness strikes me as silly one way or the other, but I did get curious about the precise ACBL rules and couldn't find them on-line.
Septimus
There was a lawsuit. Political correctness by force.
The claim was not that the men only events were offensive
to women, but that these events discriminated against them.
Fred.
They are only discriminatory if there exist men's events but not women's
events.

It all seems like a bad example of first world problems. I don't
complain that some gyms have women only evenings but not men only
evenings, or that there exists a women's institute, but not a men's
institute. I wonder if anyone is campaigning for men to be treated
better in divorce court cases and child custody? There are far more
important things to get worked up about regarding discrimination than
whether bridge events are gender specific.
Fred.
2017-01-04 00:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Lea
Post by Fred.
Post by jogs
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
Much political correctness strikes me as silly one way or the other, but I did get curious about the precise ACBL rules and couldn't find them on-line.
Septimus
There was a lawsuit. Political correctness by force.
The claim was not that the men only events were offensive
to women, but that these events discriminated against them.
Fred.
They are only discriminatory if there exist men's events but not women's
events.
It all seems like a bad example of first world problems. I don't
complain that some gyms have women only evenings but not men only
evenings, or that there exists a women's institute, but not a men's
institute. I wonder if anyone is campaigning for men to be treated
better in divorce court cases and child custody? There are far more
important things to get worked up about regarding discrimination than
whether bridge events are gender specific.
Read the LA Times article in Jon Campbell's post. Whether
you agree with the outcome or not, the claim was based on
opportunities for advancement, not hurt feelings.

Fred.
jogs
2017-01-04 20:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Lea
Post by Fred.
Post by jogs
There was a lawsuit. Political correctness by force.
The claim was not that the men only events were offensive
to women, but that these events discriminated against them.
Fred.
They are only discriminatory if there exist men's events but not women's
events.
A couple(in the old days, that meant a man and a woman) would not be able to play in either event.
Travis Crump
2017-01-02 21:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
Much political correctness strikes me as silly one way or the other, but I did get curious about the precise ACBL rules and couldn't find them on-line.
Septimus
I think the problem with Men's Pairs is that they were viewed as the
premier event and as such everyone needs to be allowed to participate.
Women's Pairs on the other hand are considered a lesser event and hence
it is fine to exclude people. It is little different than the
Mini-Spingolds. The top women players for the most part stick to the
open events. The Wagar Women's Knockout only had 7 teams enter last
year. Machlin Women's Swiss was 10 tables. Smith Life Master Women's
Pairs was 26 tables. All are the top Women's events; all are run
concurrent to an open event with much larger participation. I have to
wonder why they bother just based on turnout.
Fred.
2017-01-03 13:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travis Crump
Post by s***@gmail.com
In a thread titled "Are women-only bridge tournaments discriminatory?"
Me: "They had Women's Pairs, Mixed Pairs, and Men's Pairs."
Response: "Isn't this actually: no men allowed, one man allowed, two men allowed?"
Much political correctness strikes me as silly one way or the other, but I did get curious about the precise ACBL rules and couldn't find them on-line.
Septimus
I think the problem with Men's Pairs is that they were viewed as the
premier event and as such everyone needs to be allowed to participate.
Women's Pairs on the other hand are considered a lesser event and hence
it is fine to exclude people. It is little different than the
Mini-Spingolds. The top women players for the most part stick to the
open events. The Wagar Women's Knockout only had 7 teams enter last
year. Machlin Women's Swiss was 10 tables. Smith Life Master Women's
Pairs was 26 tables. All are the top Women's events; all are run
concurrent to an open event with much larger participation. I have to
wonder why they bother just based on turnout.
According to the 1985 LA Times article the basis for the suit was
that the litigants were discriminated against by limiting their
opportunities to acquire points towards world competition.

Presumably, a men only, or women only event would not result in this
form of discrimination as long as there was a nearby concurrent event
which the excluded gender could compete in for at least as many points.

Fred.
Barry Margolin
2017-01-03 16:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred.
Presumably, a men only, or women only event would not result in this
form of discrimination as long as there was a nearby concurrent event
which the excluded gender could compete in for at least as many points.
I think that's the problem -- the Women's Pairs awarded fewer points.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
jogs
2017-01-03 18:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Fred.
Presumably, a men only, or women only event would not result in this
form of discrimination as long as there was a nearby concurrent event
which the excluded gender could compete in for at least as many points.
I think that's the problem -- the Women's Pairs awarded fewer points.
In the seventies the Men's pairs would be 3 to 5 sections. The Women's pairs would be 12 to 15 sections. The Women's pairs should award more points.
Barry Margolin
2017-01-03 19:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jogs
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Fred.
Presumably, a men only, or women only event would not result in this
form of discrimination as long as there was a nearby concurrent event
which the excluded gender could compete in for at least as many points.
I think that's the problem -- the Women's Pairs awarded fewer points.
In the seventies the Men's pairs would be 3 to 5 sections. The Women's pairs
would be 12 to 15 sections. The Women's pairs should award more points.
But I'll bet it didn't. There was presumably a stereotype that the men
were tougher competition, while the Women's Pairs was mostly "little old
ladies", so winning in the smaller field was considered a bigger
achievement and awarded more masterpoints.

These days, the NABC+ Women's events have dwindled, and ACBL has finally
axed the Wagar KO and Machlin Swiss Teams because they were getting so
few entries. They'll be played for the last time in 2017.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Steve Willner
2017-01-08 01:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Margolin
I think that's the problem -- the Women's Pairs awarded fewer points.
I don't think that's correct. I believe the "de-rating factor" (80% of
open from dim memory) was the same for Men's, Women's, and Mixed. Of
course actual masterpoints depended on number of entrants in each event.

The lawsuit had nothing to do with masterpoints. The female plaintiff
wanted to play in the Men's Pairs specifically because it was a stronger
event.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...