[blackshoe]

If it will aid you in the play, it is illegal to write it down.

[mike777]

matmat, on Mar 26 2008, 02:08 PM, said:

mike777, on Mar 26 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

How you guys cannot survive 3 hours or 3 days without one is sure funny....

When I go out to an area that
1) is far away from home (as most events are)
2) i have friends in who do not play bridge
3) it is my only means of communication, as i don't have a lifeline nearby and pay-phones really are not practical.

I want to have my cell phone (and for the record, I *hate* the things).


IMO if there has been a case of cheating using a cell phone, this really should be documented and presented as a reason for this regulation. as it stands now it looks like the writers are doing some sort of proactive, nebulous thing that a lot of people will/do disagree with.


if you really want to ban cell phones, have a little box for them AT EACH table. just a little opaque cardboard or plastic box, lined with foam, that all four players have an eye on. that way there won't be much fear about the phones getting lost/stolen, and, in principle, if a signal is sent all 4 players will be able to tell, if at all.


of course, maybe ACBL events should take place in gymnasia. each player gets a pocket-less orange uniform with their ACBL number in big black letters on the back, and each gets a locker to put their street clothes and accessories.

1) I have read of cases where there have been questions/concerns raised at top class events, but 100% proof of cheating, no.....
2) If you need a lifeline in your pocket when you go out of town and cannot wait to get back to your room or a landline fair enough.......it seems most agree withyou but really to demand it..seems funny....
3) If your friends do not play bridge, I am not sure why you Must must talk with them when out of town on a lifeline and not wait for a hardline phone but if you must ok.....

[JanM]

TimG, on Mar 26 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

awm, on Mar 26 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

This just really seems like a move to screw over certain groups of people (young people, working people) on a flimsy excuse of preventing a type of cheating which probably hasn't ever happened. Cell phone reception in the playing area at most convention centers is lousy anyway.

Wasn't the new rule at least in part prompted by rumors circulating at the SF NABC regarding a Senior event? That was my impression from what little I have heard, anyway. It being the rumor mill, it could be completely wrong.

It was the Women's, not the Seniors

And although that may have influenced the adoption of the rule, it has been in the works for about 3 years.

I know many of you seem to think this rule is absurd, but all I can say (once again) is that it is the rule for all USBF events and we haven't had any problems with it. It is also the rule for WBF events. For the USBF events, we also make certain that there are separate bathrooms for the Open and Closed rooms. In fact, whenever it's possible, we make sure that there is a bathroom in the playing room and only one table per room. I remember last year or the year before answering a cell phone and going into a room in which a player who *might* have to substitute for someone who was playing despite feeling unwell had been isolated (and before you start talking about solitary confinement, he had a TV and a friend) to tell him who had called. When the events are serious and on Vugraph, security really is very important. And although the appearance is less important than reality, it does help to prevent people from claiming that others have cheated.

As for an earlier comment about wanting to play the Regional event and then take a cell phone into the Vanderbilt to kibitz, kibitzers are generally banned after the first half of each segment, so you can't play the Regional event and then go kibitz the "real" event. Usually, at the point in time that kibitzers are banned, those in the room are given a warning so they can go to the bathroom before the doors are "locked."

[matmat]

mike777, on Mar 26 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

1) I have read of cases where there have been questions/concerns raised at top class events, but 100% proof of cheating, no.....
2) If you need a lifeline in your pocket when you go out of town and cannot wait to get back to your room or a landline fair enough.......it seems most agree withyou but really to demand it..seems funny....
3) If your friends do not play bridge,  I am not sure why you Must must talk with them when out of town on a lifeline and not wait for a hardline phone but if you must ok.....

1) have those that perpetrated this application of a cell phone been punished? if not, why not? and if not, WTF is everyone else getting caned for this?

2) because i don't want to get back to my room, as it is in a different hotel, since I am cheap and a student, for example?

3) because I don't get to travel to places like detroit on business, and i need the phone to coordinate with friends to get together for, lunch say? or dinner? or get directions to their place... or...(this is especially pertinent to the latest NABCs where people were lamenting that it took way too long to get back to their rooms, and, as i recall, breaks between sessions are not that long...

[mike777]

JanM, on Mar 26 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 26 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

awm, on Mar 26 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

This just really seems like a move to screw over certain groups of people (young people, working people) on a flimsy excuse of preventing a type of cheating which probably hasn't ever happened. Cell phone reception in the playing area at most convention centers is lousy anyway.

Wasn't the new rule at least in part prompted by rumors circulating at the SF NABC regarding a Senior event? That was my impression from what little I have heard, anyway. It being the rumor mill, it could be completely wrong.

It was the Women's, not the Seniors

And although that may have influenced the adoption of the rule, it has been in the works for about 3 years.

I know many of you seem to think this rule is absurd, but all I can say (once again) is that it is the rule for all USBF events and we haven't had any problems with it. It is also the rule for WBF events. For the USBF events, we also make certain that there are separate bathrooms for the Open and Closed rooms. In fact, whenever it's possible, we make sure that there is a bathroom in the playing room and only one table per room. I remember last year or the year before answering a cell phone and going into a room in which a player who *might* have to substitute for someone who was playing despite feeling unwell had been isolated (and before you start talking about solitary confinement, he had a TV and a friend) to tell him who had called. When the events are serious and on Vugraph, security really is very important. And although the appearance is less important than reality, it does help to prevent people from claiming that others have cheated.

As for an earlier comment about wanting to play the Regional event and then take a cell phone into the Vanderbilt to kibitz, kibitzers are generally banned after the first half of each segment, so you can't play the Regional event and then go kibitz the "real" event. Usually, at the point in time that kibitzers are banned, those in the room are given a warning so they can go to the bathroom before the doors are "locked."

ty for your post Jan. I am glad to see at least a few bridge players survive 3hours without a cell/phone/device.

[TimG]

JanM, on Mar 26 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

I know many of you seem to think this rule is absurd, but all I can say (once again) is that it is the rule for all USBF events and we haven't had any problems with it. It is also the rule for WBF events. For the USBF events, we also make certain that there are separate bathrooms for the Open and Closed rooms. In fact, whenever it's possible, we make sure that there is a bathroom in the playing room and only one table per room.

Obviously this would be impractical for for NABC team events. Even the finals of the Reisinger has ten tables -- ten rooms, each with a private bathroom would be rather ridiculous, especially when the rounds are called!

This rule won't affect me -- I do take a cell phone to bridge tournaments, but do not carry it with me, it always stays behind in my room or car, even when my room is not at the playing site. I do not think it is unreasonable to ban cell phones, though it is sad that it is not sufficient to require they be turned off from a few minutes before the game starts to a few minutes after it ends.

My objection to the new rule is that I think effort would be better put forth in eliminating the possibility of illegal communication through hi-tech (or low-tech) means. I am not the first to suggest that there be true closed room, that kibitzers and participants ought not be allowed to leave the playing area during a segment (or round), and boards should be duplicated and played nearly simultaneously rather than passed between tables.

[barmar]

matmat, on Mar 26 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 26 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

I used to play with a legally blind partner. He didn't use bidding boxes. I once caught an opponent writing down the auction. When I pointed out that is illegal, she said "but I can't remember it without the bidding cards!"

Maybe we should ban pencil and paper in the playing area, too.

threadjack...

is it permissible to write down the auction at all before the opening lead(as a player?). What if you do it just to have a record of the auction for later? how about with the excuse that writing it down helps you remember it?

(in either case you have no intent to look at it during the play).

There are areas where the standard method of bidding is by writing them down. The Laws say that anyone can request a full review of the auction until they play to the first trick. So I think it's OK to write down the auction, so long as you hide it after trick 1.

[TimG]

barmar, on Mar 26 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

The Laws say that anyone can request a full review of the auction until they play to the first trick.

Only when it is their turn to call.

[barmar]

TimG, on Mar 26 2008, 05:16 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 26 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

The Laws say that anyone can request a full review of the auction until they play to the first trick.

Only when it is their turn to call.

But obviously the common use of bidding boxes suggests that they're allowed to be reminded of the auction at any time. I take the more limited wording of the Law to serve two purposes: 1) Keep things orderly, by prescribing specific times when each player may take actions (request a review, look at an opponent's convention card, etc.); and 2) Prevent UI due to a player asking a question when it's his partner's turn to call.

Basically, if bidding boxes are allowed by the Laws, then written bidding should be treated analogously.

[jtfanclub]

The last NABC was in Detroit. One of the largest universities in the country, the University of Michigan, is 45 miles away. But apparently you're not supposed to take a cell phone with you, so if the bus is running late you won't be able to tell your partners to get a sub (or to wait for you to get there).

Or, well, you could be taking public transportation from Windsor, be detained by the INS, and released in the middle of the night long after the last bus has left, with no transportation and no pay phone. But of course, that would never happen, right?

[helene_t]

It is common practice here that the opening lead is recorded on the bridgemate. So the person who operates the bridgemate (usually North) has the privilege that s/he can see what the opening lead is (but to see it he has to press some button to clear the screen(battery) saver).

Maybe the battery saver is made that way partly in order to avoid abuse of said feature?

[david_c]

JanM, on Mar 26 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

I know many of you seem to think this rule is absurd, but all I can say (once again) is that it is the rule for all USBF events and we haven't had any problems with it. It is also the rule for WBF events.

But surely you realise that there's a difference? If I played in an international event or a trial I would expect this sort of regulation, because the integrity of the event is all-important. But congresses are run for the benefit of the players.

If I'm going to a congress the prevention of cheating is not high on my list of what makes a good event. I care about what the venue is like; I care about how well-run the event is; I care about the start times; I care about how much it costs to play. But cheating? I don't even think about it. (I might if opps did something suspicious, but that's never happened yet.) Draconian measures aimed at preventing cheating, on the other hand, are certainly something which affect my enjoyment.

I don't use my mobile phone as much as most poeple my age. But I use it more at bridge tournaments than anywhere else. Yes people used to get along fine without them, but there's a reason why people carry their phones with them everywhere nowadays. They've found them to be very useful. Going back to a phoneless state would be a massive inconvenience. (In fact if this rule came in where I live it would mean I would have to change my travel arrangements.) That might be OK if we're getting something decent in return, but we're not.

[mike777]

david_c, on Mar 26 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

JanM, on Mar 26 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

I know many of you seem to think this rule is absurd, but all I can say (once again) is that it is the rule for all USBF events and we haven't had any problems with it. It is also the rule for WBF events.

But surely you realise that there's a difference? If I played in an international event or a trial I would expect this sort of regulation, because the integrity of the event is all-important. But congresses are run for the benefit of the players.

If I'm going to a congress the prevention of cheating is not high on my list of what makes a good event. I care about what the venue is like; I care about how well-run the event is; I care about the start times; I care about how much it costs to play. But cheating? I don't even think about it. (I might if opps did something suspicious, but that's never happened yet.) Draconian measures aimed at preventing cheating, on the other hand, are certainly something which affect my enjoyment.

I don't use my mobile phone as much as most poeple my age. But I use it more at bridge tournaments than anywhere else. Yes people used to get along fine without them, but there's a reason why people carry their phones with them everywhere nowadays. They've found them to be very useful. Going back to a phoneless state would be a massive inconvenience. (In fact if this rule came in where I live it would mean I would have to change my travel arrangements.) That might be OK if we're getting something decent in return, but we're not.

I really like how you framed the discussion.

"....because the integrity of the event is all-important. But congresses are run for the benefit of the players....."

Bobby Wolff just wrote a book basically taking the "Integrity is all-important" side of this debate and discussing the cheating going on for years.

You make a nice counterpoint to all of this.

[cherdano]

I agree with David, there is a huge difference between a USBF trial and a random NABC+ event.

[JanM]

cherdano, on Mar 27 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

I agree with David, there is a huge difference between a USBF trial and a random NABC+ event.

I suppose the problem is that ACBL doesn't like to admit that there are "random" NABC+ events. So they can't really define the events for which security is more important than just about anything else. Of course those of us who favor this ban are worried about the "real" NABC+ events, which are every bit as high level as World Championships. The Vanderbilt, Spingold, and Reisinger definitely have fields at least as good as World Championships. The final day of the 3-day pair events isn't as strong as it used to be but it's still a "real" event. And the 2-day team games are too.
We're not talking about club games here. But then if you start talking about the Mixed Pairs (I've refused to play in that since they moved it to a "secondary" position opposite the third day of the Vanderbilt) and such silly events, you're probably right that it really isn't as important that we prevent cheating as that everyone has a good time. I can't believe I said that, but maybe it's true.

[awm]

There are a lot of technical and logistical differences between USBF Trials and NABCs.

I doubt USBF trials see more than a couple hundred people. NABCs are more like ten thousand. This makes it a lot harder to find people before and after events. It also makes the logistics of any kind of cell-phone checkin a lot more awkward, as the first day of LM pairs or BR pairs will often see more tables than USBF trials by a large factor.

At USBF events, most everyone there stays at the host hotel. For NABCs this is not possible, which means it's not just a "quick run up to your room" to get your phone, and your friends are not necessarily going back to the same place as you between sessions.

At USBF events, there is generally just one (or maybe two) events going on at a time. They have the same start and finish times. So coordinating where people are when your event finishes is not difficult -- they are in the same event, they finish at the same time.

At USBF events, you show up with a team, and you play with that team until you get knocked out. Then you are done. At NABCs arrangements often have to be made on the fly because so many events are going on. If you get knocked out of the spingold you may need to scramble to find a mixed bam team. There are a lot of options of what to play (even if you are sticking to NABC+ events) and a lot of plans are made conditional based on whether people are in the main event.

At USBF events, there are not very many people around just to kibitz. The people kibitzing the main event are mostly the people sitting out of the main event, or the people who lost earlier in the main event. At NABCs there are huge numbers of people playing in the non-NABC+ event who stop by to kibitz bits and pieces of the big events.

So the point is, there are a lot of differences between USBF events and NABCs. These differences tend to make a cell phone much more useful at the NABCs, because it is much more crowded, people are spread out over many hotels, and there is a lot to coordinate with people playing in different events that finish at different times, and needing to figure out situations for teams when people get knocked out of the major events. They also make the logistics of a cell phone ban more troublesome at NABCs, since there are more phones to check, more random people wandering around who might try to steal a phone, more annoyance with leaving your phone in your room since it may not be at the host hotel, and more kibitzers who would object strenuously to being strip-searched for cell-phones (and whom you can't just dock a board for penalty if you find one).

[TimG]

awm, on Mar 27 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

I doubt USBF trials see more than a couple hundred people. NABCs are more like ten thousand.

Detroit's attendance was ~8550 tables, I wonder how many individuals that represents. I would guess many less than 8500. (Not to dispute your assertion that NABCs involve many more people than the Trials -- I'm sure you are right -- just curious how the table count translates to individuals.)

[blackshoe]

8550 tables/10 days/3 events per day = 285 tables/event*4 players/table= 1140 players/event. If players play in half the available events, then 1140*15=17100 players. Just a guess; you could argue with my assumptions.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Mar 27 2008, 09:23 AM, said:

8550 tables/10 days/3 events per day = 285 tables/event*4 players/table= 1140 players/event. If players play in half the available events, then 1140*15=17100 players. Just a guess; you could argue with my assumptions.

I think something is wrong with your guesstimate. 8550 tables = 34,200 player sessions. If each player at the NABC plays in an average of 4 sessions, that means 8550 individuals. If players average more than 4 sessions, there will be fewer than 8550 individuals; if players average fewer than 4 sessions, there will be more than 8550 individuals. I'm guessing that the average NABC patron plays more than 4 sessions.

[mike777]

This thread is funny, it started out saying I must have a cell phone on my body at all times or people will Die or my company will got out of business, to now I must have a cell phone on my body to talk with my bridge buddies who are at the tourney.