[barmar]

TimG, on Mar 27 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

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.

Rather than trying to count the total number of attendees, for the purposes of this discussion it's probably more useful to count the number of people at the tournament at any one time. There are roughly 1,000 tables each day (Detroit attendance was significantly lower than most NABCs). The morning, midnight, and I/N games combined probably have about the same entrants as the afternoon and evening regional+ sessions, so I think it would be reasonable to estimate about 300 tables at each regional+ session, or about 1200 players in the main rooms at a time.

If they need to collect cellphones from just 20% of them, that's over 200 phones to store somewhere in a secure manner.

[helene_t]

In the March issue of IMP there was a very funny comment about the cell phone ban in the Netherlands. The author was trying to imagine a situation in which someone succeeded in cheating with the aid of a cell phone. He was not successful.

[awm]

mike777, on Mar 27 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

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.

Cell phones are very popular and a lot of people have them. Among the younger crowd, for an increasing number of us the cell phone is our only phone. But even people our grandparents' age are buying cell phones in increasing numbers. And yes, it is something people carry everywhere.

It's quite true that cell phones have a wide range of uses. They are an emergency form of contact (have mostly replaced pagers), they are also a way to get in touch with friends, make restaurant reservations, get online maps of whatever unfamiliar city you're in, and find out when tomorrow's bridge event starts. They also act as calendars, appointment books, record the phone numbers you need to remember, and generally perform the tasks of personal digital assistants. They are portable music players, cameras, and have global positioning in case you get lost. They are quite expensive little gadgets.

With this in mind, losing a cell phone (or having it stolen) can be a pretty serious problem. This makes it a bit undesirable to "leave it in your room" or "drop it at the desk with a hundred others."

How do you think people would react if told that you cannot carry a purse anywhere near the major events? How about if you couldn't carry a pack of cigarettes (to name two other things that people carry "everywhere")? It is more than a minor inconvenience.

[mike777]

"How do you think people would react if told that you cannot carry a purse anywhere near the major events? How about if you couldn't carry a pack of cigarettes (to name two other things that people carry "everywhere")? It is more than a minor inconvenience."

Well first if you want to ban those also, no problem, but in all seriousness, if this is a major inconvenience, people will either stop going to tourneys or the ban will last about one day. And yes I find it very humorous that people are is such an uproar over not having a cell phone/device for 3 hours or 6 hours on one floor of a tourney.

As has been mentioned in other threads the day when we all have some wireless internet chip/phone chip/whatever implanted in our bodies in not that far off.

[awm]

My expectation is that the following will happen:

(1) Many people will ignore this rule and carry cell phones anyway. They will be hidden in purses or pockets as they usually are. The vast majority will be off, or silenced.

(2) For the most part nothing will be enforced, unless a cell phone actually goes off during play.

(3) It is possible that there will be some selective enforcement (i.e. against younger players). If this happens, the younger players will complain loudly and a few will quit bridge in protest. This will be bad for the game, but will make some (many) of the older generation happier.

(4) The regulation will stay on the books, and anyone who suggests removing it will be accused loudly of wanting to "facilitate cheating."

(5) There will continue to be small numbers of cheating incidents and large numbers of rumors about possible cheating incidents at NABCs. Most of them will continue to be virtually impossible to prove or disprove.

[helene_t]

I feel the same as Mike777. That may be partly because I'm not a regular cell phone user. But when staying at a hotel I tend to leave passport, purse etc. at the hotel room as much as possible, figuring that my values are safer there than in my handbag.

In the unlikely event that I expected to make or receive an urgent call between rounds, I would be ok with leaving my cell phone with my coat in the cloakroom.

Then again, I also don't see why it would be such a problem to allow players to carry cell phones. To use the vibration as a hint ("a short vib means lead a trump, a long vib means lead dummy's suit") the assistant would need to know which board the player was playing exactly when, so he either needs to be a kibitzer (hard to operate a cell phone while kibitzing without being noticed) or the match must be BBO covered, in which case stricter security measures may apply.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Mar 27 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

I feel the same as Mike777. That may be partly because I'm not a regular cell phone user. But when staying at a hotel I tend to leave passport, purse etc. at the hotel room as much as possible, figuring that my values are safer there than in my handbag.

In the unlikely event that I expected to make or receive an urgent call between rounds, I would be ok with leaving my cell phone with my coat in the cloakroom.

Then again, I also don't see why it would be such a problem to allow players to carry cell phones. To use the vibration as a hint ("a short vib means lead a trump, a long vib means lead dummy's suit") the assistant would need to know which board the player was playing exactly when, so he either needs to be a kibitzer (hard to operate a cell phone while kibitzing without being noticed) or the match must be BBO covered, in which case stricter security measures may apply.

Helene, you seem to imply that it would be difficult if not impossible to cheat via a cell phone. I know almost nothing about them but I thought it would very easy to cheat if one wanted to. I run to the restroom or to the bar to refill alot already. How hard is it to read a text msg there.

At my local club at I have seen at least two people with those "bluetooth" devices on their ears during the whole round.

Of course I have been told that at least one famous MP player could walk to the bathroom and memorize every dummy he passed by so........

[barmar]

mike777, on Mar 27 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

At my local club at I have seen at least two people with those "bluetooth" devices on their ears during the whole round.

And I wonder how long it will be before manufacturers can make those bluetooth headsets as small as hearing aids. Since the majority of bridge players are elderly, many of them would then be able to get away with claiming that they're hearing aids -- who's going to challenge them?

[helene_t]

OK, fair point. At grammar school during exams one could sometimes find solutions to the tests on small paper noted hidden at the toilets, but OK, with cell phones it would be a lot easier.

Last weekend at the Blackpool Congress we played 7-board rounds with all tables playing the same boards in the same round, so I would have to have my friend playing the boards in a different order than I did (which was beyond our control and not disclosed in advance) and then we both would have to go to the toilet during the round (which was unusual) and then the whole stress of having to notice something about a board useful to my friend, how to make my point clear in an SMS (oh ***** was it board 7 or board 8 where I could give p a ruff by leading a club?) plus the fear of getting caught would certainly impair my play a lot.

And then I manage to instruct my friend to lead a club only to hear afterwards "thanks but I was dummy on that board".

[hrothgar]

Here's the "Cheating Model" that I suspect that folks are worried about

1. I am playing in a typical ACBL event in which boards are not played simultaneously.

2. I play board X and Y

3. I wander off to the bathroom, go into a stall, pull a cell phone out of my pocket, pop in a battery (stored separately) and send a text message to my confederate providing some critical piece of information.

4. Five minutes later, after I return to my seat. My confederate wanders off to a completely different bathroom, repeats the proceedure, and retrieves the information.

I'll repeat my basic points

First: I appreciate the fact that folks are concerned about this type of behaviour.

Second: Don't pass stupid laws. Banning electronic devices will have no practical impact on people's ability to cheat. I doubt that banning cell phones will have any practical impact on the number of folks who carry cell phones.

Third: If you really want to stop this type of cheating then you need to make systemic changes in the way that baords are dealt and played. I find it pathetic that the ACBL is willing to pass cosmetic sets of rules changes that inconvince the membership as a whole without any apparant discussion about real security measures (dealing machines, etc)

[helene_t]

barmar, on Mar 27 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

And I wonder how long it will be before manufacturers can make those bluetooth headsets as small as hearing aids. Since the majority of bridge players are elderly, many of them would then be able to get away with claiming that they're hearing aids -- who's going to challenge them?

Better still, a friend of mine who suffers from Parkinson just got a brain implant so that he can jam his own motor neurons with a remote control.

[joshs]

Once again, the ACBL strikes. I am all for eliminating cheating, but this really is going rather far. I hope the ACBL sets up a way to check cellphones or attendence will probably seriously suffer.

When I go to nationals:
a. I almost never stay at the host hotel. Its too expensive.
b. I rarely have a rental car
c. I generally go to nationals where I have friends I want to visit with, or there are other things to do. For instance in San Fran I met up with friends a few evenings and went to dinner and then had to call a cab to get back to the playing site. This coordination is really hard without cell phones.
d. I often like to go and kibbitz for an hour or so when I am not playing, andt hen go off and do other things.
e. In the past, I had to be on conference calls for work before or between sessions on occasion, although this has not been happening with my current job.

Putting this all together, if I had to leave my cell phone in my hotel room, it has a major impact on my enjoyment of nationals. Its not as easy as going upstairs to the room to get it, since the hotel room is often a 20-30 minute walk away.

p.s. Arranging last minute partnerships for national events without a cell phone is kind of hard....

[uday]

Mike, I don't think this is just about texting our BFFs.

Must some people be reachable while playing bridge? I think so. I have a child in daycare at most NABCs. My inlaws are over 90 years old. I have an online system that has to be up 24x7. I sorta-kinda don't *have* to be reachable at all hours, but I sorta-kinda do.

This isn't a huge issue. Many workarounds exist.

Maybe cellphones don't work in the basement anyway. Maybe we'll be able to pass our cellphones to the director. Maybe we'll be able to pay a caddy to carry our phones while we play. Maybe one of our pals will be willing to hold them for us. Maybe the hotel desk will hold them for us. Maybe we'll learn to relax instead of worrying.

At the same time, this isn't a non-issue.

Some host hotels have "elevator issues" before and after sessions, and it can take 20 minutes to catch a ride. Some people choose to carry their cellphones between sessions and they have to have a reasonable solution for stashing and retrieving their phones quickly and safely.

I'm sure no one thinks that the ACBL is simply being capricious here. They're trying to solve a problem (cheating via texting, it seems). Maybe this isn't the perfect answer and time will help them refine it. The one thing I'm sure of is that the ACBL wants us all to have a good time at NABCs.

[cherdano]

Of course whatever committee made this decision had no evil intentions. But most likely they live in a reality where cell phones aren't as important as in the reality of many of the younger NABC attendants.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Mar 27 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Third:  If you really want to stop this type of cheating then you need to make systemic changes in the way that boards are dealt and played.  I find it pathetic that the ACBL is willing to pass cosmetic sets of rules changes that inconvenience the membership as a whole without any apparent discussion about real security measures (dealing machines, etc)

The last time I played in the Vanderbilt, my teammates played in the same room as I did and we passed boards back and forth. We also were free to leave the table and wander the halls at any point, it seemed almost every table took the "caddy call" break to leave the playing area to smoke/visit the restroom/get a beverage/stretch their legs. Maybe some players took the opportunity to call home/work/teammates. If I had been part of a six-man team, I could easily have communicated to a team member who was not playing this segment (who could then relay information to teammates who were playing). There were no restrictions on kibitzers entering or leaving the room.

I'm sure security gets tighter as the event progresses. But, I totally agree with Richard that eliminating cellphones does not address the real issues. And, that ACBL could foster a different attitude amongst the players by first taking care of matters of condition for which ACBL should be directly responsible.

I'll bet that if ACBL had first set up the events in a professional manner and then there were still serious concerns about cheating via cellphones, there would be far less opposition to a cell phone ban.

(Of course, I don't have any idea whether there is lots of opposition to this new rule -- the opinions of a few BBO forum users is probably not representative of ABCL membership as a whole or the players who are contending for NABC titles.)

In Jonathan Steinberg's Detroit Report I read that "In Detroit, the ACBL hired a firm to monitor and record players." I don't expect that was cheap. That expenditure would likely have been a nice start to a fund for dealing machines and cards.

[awm]

In addition to helping prevent cheating and possibly costing less than player monitoring and cell phone detectors....

Dealing machines might actually enhance the enjoyment of nationals for most players.

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous that we're manually duplicating boards on the first day of the life master pairs. It creates opportunities for even "inadvertent" cheating (i.e. seeing the hand diagram on the duplication sheet), and it's a pain. A few extra dealing machines and we could have pre duplicated boards on day one (even for the regionally rated games), and have simultaneous play on day two.

[Mbodell]

TimG, on Mar 27 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

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.

Well we know roughly how many people played based on how many won masterpoints.

3555 won master points. How many people played in nationals and didn't win any masterpoints? Maybe only a few locals as I'd imagine nearly everyone else would have at least won a match award in a loser swiss or what not. So probably 3600 or 3700 people total in detroit.

[the hog]

uday, on Mar 27 2008, 11:36 PM, said:

Mike, I don't think this is just about texting our BFFs.

Must some people be reachable while playing bridge? I think so. I have a child in daycare at most NABCs. My inlaws are over 90 years old. I have an online system that has to be up 24x7. I sorta-kinda don't *have* to be reachable at all hours, but I sorta-kinda do.

So what did you do in the years before mobile phones?
Thye have to be switched off in Oz events or else you are liable to a 5VP fine.

[Elianna]

I'm not upset about not being able to use my phone. I'm not happy being told that I have to leave my phone somewhere. I have yet to hear a proposal where I would feel safe leaving the second-most expensive object that I own. And leaving it in my hotel room is impossible, as the very reason for bringing one to an NABC is to be in contact with partners/teammates before the game.

[matmat]

The_Hog, on Mar 27 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

So what did you do in the years before mobile phones?
Thye have to be switched off in Oz events or else you are liable to a 5VP fine.

I have no problem with the phones being switched off, I have a problem with being told that people have to leave their phones at some inaccessible place.