The Confusing Meaning of "Open" Level Contests

Here's a thought experiment: A person is looking through the list of competitions at their favorite swing dance event and they decide to enter the "open" level contest of the levels available to them. The contest is described as being "open to all dancers." The person entering the open-level contest is most likely to be which of the following? 

1. an amateur dancer
2. an advanced, all-star, or pro dancer
3. information is not sufficient to answer

For many competitions, the answer is C. We can't tell from the information given whether the open contest at this event is the lower or higher level of competition—so we don't know whether that contest is a good fit for the person's skills. We need, at least, to know the names and descriptions of the other contest level(s) at the event to understand what "open" means in this question. We may also need to have other tacit knowledge of how the contest levels really operate—information that is not in the descriptions at all but has to be inferred or told to you. Which is a problem.

The Two Uses

But first, so we're all on the same page, here are the two uses of "open." At some events, “open” means “open to dancers of all levels, including both amateurs and professionals.” The comparison level is amateur (lower, in that it is available only to amateurs). In this case, the open level is the highest level of the levels available to choose from. (Invitational doesn't count because the organizers choose you; you can't choose it.) ABW and CalBal both use this model.

In contrast, sometimes the contest is labeled "open" and the description says "open to dancers of all levels"... but the comparison levels are advanced, all-star, and pro/invitational. In this case, the open level is the lowest level. ILHC and Snowball both use this model. 

So you can’t count on “open” always being open to all; “open” has to be understood in context of the other competition levels.

Is It a Problem to Have Two Uses of "Open" in the Swing Community? 

I do not think it is in and of itself a problem to have two meanings of "open" at use in the community. Plenty of words have multiple meanings. Sometimes the meanings of words are even contradictory. (Any person who read Amelia Bedelia may now recall the time Amelia "dusted" the furniture by throwing dusting powder on it ... as well as basically anything else Amelia ever did).

As long as you clearly and concisely define what you mean by "open" in the sentence the potential competitor is currently reading, you'll be fine. 

The problem is that many contest descriptions fall short of this benchmark, which leads to confusion and other potential negative effects. Both types of contest use the description "open to all dancers" or "open to all levels" but that's not accurate or specific enough right there in that sentence.

Open = Highest

When open = highest, the pool of dancers is conceptualized like this: Amateur dancers are defined as a subset of all dancers, and the contest is open to all dancers, including both pros and amateurs.

However, when open = highest, the open contest description usually does not compare the levels explicitly enough. I've stood next to dancers in an open = highest contest who were mortified to find themselves standing next to me, let alone next to their professional teachers. These people felt way in over their heads. Some of them were embarrassed. They expected the open = lowest model.

A small tweak to language might help. For open = highest, instead of saying "all dancers may compete in the open contest," be more specific and draw the right comparison. Say "All dancers may compete in the open contest, which typically contains a mix of intermediate, advanced, masters, and professional dancers. Dancers who wish to compete against only other amateur dancers and who meet the definition of an amateur [which organizers should also define] should enter the amateur contest."

Likewise, the amateur contest description could say, "Only amateur dancers [as organizers define this] are allowed to enter the amateur contest. Amateur dancers may also enter the open contest, which typically contains a mix of dancers of all skill levels, including masters and professional."

Open = Lowest

When open = lowest, the pool of dancers is conceptualized like this: Dancers are defined as discrete subsets by level. Levels do not overlap in a meaningful or intentional way. 

However, when open = lowest, the open contest description almost never (in my experience) accurately describes the pool of actual entrants. The description usually says "open to all levels," but that's not actually true. A better description for when open = lowest, is “all dancers who do not otherwise qualify for the advanced, all-star, and/or invitational levels may enter the open contest; dancers who qualify for advanced, all-star and/or invitational should compete at the appropriate level.”

With that description, I know before I sign up whether I can expect to be dancing next to my teachers. The description helps newer competitors especially avoid unnecessary confusion and invites them into a system where they know they will be competing against only other people of their same skill level.

What to Do

As long as you clearly define what you mean and do in practice, people will figure out what to sign up for and have a better time doing it.

Any of the following solutions would be fine with me as an event attendee, competitor, and language enthusiast. 

1. Contest organizers clarify what is meant by “open,” for example, as described in this post. Explain exactly who will be allowed to enter this contest right there in the contest description. Then people do not need to read between the lines. 
2. Organizers reserve the term “open” for contests without levels. For example, an event with only one competition might call it Open Couples to emphasize the contest is open to all and you enter as a couple. Upon cursory investigation, attendees see there is only one level, so the meaning of “open” is obvious because there is no comparison.
3. Events that use levels in contests choose names that are logically parallel and don’t require contextualized inference of meaning. Examples are novice, amateur, advanced, all-star, pro/invitational.

What Not to Do

Do not use "open" as a verb, as in "the amateur contest is open to amateur dancers, and the open contest is open to all dancers." Just rewrite the sentence. There are already two meanings of "open" in the broader community that using "open" as a verb adds an unnecessary extra layer.

I do not think we need to standardize the language across all swing events (unless everyone agrees this is necessary, which I don't think is the case at this point in time). The overlapping levels approach and the discrete levels approach are both valid ways to structure a contest. They have different pluses and minuses and create different experiences for competitors. Diversity has merit.  

For example, when the contest term "Jack & Jill" went out of use in the swing community, many terms sprung up in its wake, including mixed couples, mix and match, and luck of the draw.  But because the descriptions for these contests say things like "people sign up individually and are paired with a random partner," there is no confusion for each specific case. The description in front of you tells you what you are getting into. 

Simple amendments to language for the meaning of "open" will help.

Why This Matters (to Me)

Competitors deserve clear definitions of terms.

Everyone should be able to make the right decision about putting themselves out there in a competition. They should feel like they were treated fairly and had a good time for any money and effort they spent. They should understand what they're looking at without needing someone in the know to explain it to them or having to read between the lines.

Although it's possible to figure out what's going on,  my experience tells me at least some people don’t understand until it’s too late to change their decision.

The solution is not to make people do mental gymnastics. That’s a deterrent to new and potential competitors—which is bad for the health of our scene. Clearer and more precise language is an easy and effective solution. It harms no one to be more clear. That's why I think we should at least try to do better.