[matmat]

brianshark, on Mar 28 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

I imagine that they are kept classified until such a time as there is enough evidence to charge someone with cheating. Anything less than sufficient proof is not enough be sure the subjects are guilty, but is certainly enough for rumours and finger pointing to suin the reputation of anyone who may have an odd entry in these classified files, guilty or not.

so you're saying there isn't enough evidence to punish those suspected of cheating, but there is sufficient evidence to punish everyone else for the cheating of the few?

[mike777]

matmat, on Mar 28 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

brianshark, on Mar 28 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

I imagine that they are kept classified until such a time as there is enough evidence to charge someone with cheating. Anything less than sufficient proof is not enough be sure the subjects are guilty, but is certainly enough for rumours and finger pointing to suin the reputation of anyone who may have an odd entry in these classified files, guilty or not.

so you're saying there isn't enough evidence to punish those suspected of cheating, but there is sufficient evidence to punish everyone else for the cheating of the few?

Yes, also Wolff does name names, lots of names in his book. Others call it sour grapes but he does list alot of incidents and uses names.

But yes, as is often the case I bet there is a perception of cheating but insufficient evidence to risk a lawsuit.

If convenience and lack of 100% cheating proof is the rule of thumb hopefully we can have sectionals and regionals online soon.
At least we will not need to ban cellphones.

[jkdood]

This is a very interesting and enlightening thread. The term that resonated most for me, was "selective" - as in biased selective enforcement, which we have seen far too often in bridge matters.

In this case however I am hopeful and optimistic that the ban and theoretical strict punishment of it, IF enforced, will be ONLY "selectively applied" to those in late stages of top events that are under (documented confidential, priviliged?) suspicion.

I would assume that it is suspected that some kibitzers or players in late rounds of top events have gone to the restroom, and perhaps sent or otherwise communicated by cellphone or personal electronic device, to their advantage. ...perhaps called someone watching VuGraf on BBO even!

The new rules could be a useful tool for the ACBL to confront those suspected and if they find a banned device in their posession, use the rule as a foolproof way to prove a violation, and take appropriate action.

I say "could be" and dearly hope that is the ACBL's objective, hidden or otherwise. I have no inside information, and even would appreciate private email about what the SF Women's rumor was in detail, as I would love to know

[finally17]

mike777, you seem very taken by this book of wolff's. i don't read the forums that carefully, skimming and skipping threads entirely, and i must have seen you reference it half a dozen times in the last month or so.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Mar 27 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

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.

"Sorry, sir, but you're going to have to leave your brain in your hotel room, it violates our electronics prohibition."

Then again, I think I've had (or been) some partners who seemed to do that.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Mar 27 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

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.

The ban specifically excludes medical devices.

[uday]

About Wolff: Fred says the Wolff book is a good read.

Quote

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.

Before phones, we carried beepers (those only helped if systems went down, not if grandpa went down, but still..). We made sure that people know how to have us paged over the PA. That worked, mostly.


But we aren't in those days now. We have antibiotics. We have cellphones (ducks! but really, life is better with them for some of us, even tho Roland would like to throw them out the window). Can't turn back the clock.

[Walddk]

uday, on Mar 29 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

Can't turn back the clock.

We can, and we do, every year in September (except for Oz and NZ where they are having fun with turning it forward)

As it is now, I can't find my keys, pipe, tobacco, glasses and credit cards. Sometimes I can't even find myself. I don't need more I can't find.

Roland

[han]

I don't think these rules force you to have a cell phone so that you can turn it in. If you don't have one then you are still allowed to play.

[vdoubleu]

After reading a lot of the comments over the past several days, I would just like to remind all of you, before you get in a twist, that this clearly is a problem that should be addressed.

Now, perhaps, some of you have some other suggestions about how the League should go about it. Then why not mention those, rather than ranting about what you might do w/o the use of yr cell for several hrs.

They are trying their best to deal with something that few of us would care to even acknowledge exists: cheating.

Yes, I realize that if players want to cheat, they will find all sorts of ways to do it.

Valerie Westheimer

[inquiry]

I will not be staying at the host hotel (staying with a friend). I will not have a car. So i will go "home" only to sleep. What am I to do with my cell phone. Leave it there? I need to contact partners (to schedule where to meet, etc), friends (to meet for dinner. lunch, etc), and family (back on east coast, will be asleep by the time I get back to the friends house.

I certainly would be willing to "check it" for a "free" or a small fee while sessions are going on. Between sessions, I expect to have access to it so I can use it, and then to "check it" again for no extra cost. I really doubt the ACBL is going to ready to handle thousands of cell phones safely and efficiently. Until they are, such a ban will be "ignored" by their members (ok, batteries out perhaps, turned off maybe, some with vibrate). I will not get any critical calls while playing but I don't want to go all day without it.. which is what this ban will cause if I follow it.

[finally17]

inquiry, on Mar 29 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

I certainly would be willing to "check it" for a "free" or a small fee while sessions are going on. Between sessions, I expect to have access to it so I can use it, and then to "check it" again for no extra cost. I really doubt the ACBL is going to ready to handle thousands of cell phones safely and efficiently. Until they are, such a ban will be "ignored" by their members (ok, batteries out perhaps, turned off maybe, some with vibrate). I will not get any critical calls while playing but I don't want to go all day without it.. which is what this ban will cause if I follow it.

You would pay for the right to follow a stupid rule? Wow.

[finally17]

Ok, this will probably just fuel on the folks I already disagree with, but I had to post it, despite still holding the position that this ban is stupid. I just found this link on fark.com (a humorous web news aggregator).

The tagline made me laugh:

Quote

"It used to be that people who were always reachable were cool and important. Today a person is interesting if he can afford to turn off his cell phone"

It's a direct quote from the article, made by a so-called "style trainer." And here's the article link: How the Digital World is Changing Behavioural Norms.

[david_c]

vdoubleu, on Mar 30 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

After reading a lot of the comments over the past several days, I would just like to remind all of you, before you get in a twist, that this clearly is a problem that should be addressed.

Well, no, I disagree. Not with the fact that cheating is a potential problem, but with the idea that we have to do something about it. Given the many different ways there are to cheat at bridge, I believe we will always have to rely to some extent on the good faith of the players. Any rule designed to make cheating more difficult must be weighed against the adverse affects on innocent players. If there is no acceptable "solution" it is better to do nothing. IMO the old regulations about mobile phones were sufficient for a NABC.

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Mar 29 2008, 09:31 PM, said:

As it is now, I can't find my keys, pipe, tobacco, glasses and credit cards. Sometimes I can't even find myself. I don't need more I can't find.

I sympathize. I often can't find my pass cards.

[Trinidad]

inquiry, on Mar 29 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

I will not be staying at the host hotel (staying with a friend). I will not have a car. So i will go "home" only to sleep. What am I to do with my cell phone. Leave it there? I need to contact partners (to schedule where to meet, etc), friends (to meet for dinner. lunch, etc), and family (back on east coast, will be asleep by the time I get back to the friends house.

I certainly would be willing to "check it" for a "free" or a small fee while sessions are going on. Between sessions, I expect to have access to it so I can use it, and then to "check it" again for no extra cost. I really doubt the ACBL is going to ready to handle thousands of cell phones safely and efficiently. Until they are, such a ban will be "ignored" by their members (ok, batteries out perhaps, turned off maybe, some with vibrate). I will not get any critical calls while playing but I don't want to go all day without it.. which is what this ban will cause if I follow it.

Maybe I am naive, but of course ACBL will provide you with a possibility to check your cell phone. I have played in different countries in competitions where cell phones were banned (I admit, not in ACBL land). By default I have my cell phone with me and on every occasion I have been able to check it. I have never paid a penny for that service. May be I am spoiled (or cheap ).

Of course, if an organization is banning cell phones they should give the players the possibility to check them. I haven't been to the Detroit NABC, but I can't believe that the organization banned the cell phones without giving players the possibility to check their phones with the tournament organization. That would be ridiculous.

If the phones were banned without the possibility to check them (which I would consider a blunder by the organization), then something should be done about the possibilities to check the phone. The ban can still stay in place.

Rik

[JanM]

Trinidad, on Mar 30 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

I haven't been to the Detroit NABC, but I can't believe that the organization banned the cell phones without giving players the possibility to check their phones with the tournament organization. That would be ridiculous.

During the Vanderbilt, players could check their phones with the directors before entering the playing rooms. That seemed to work well.
Also, someone above used the word "thousands" - remember this is only for the NABC+ events. Even on the first (or second since there are many byes the first) day of the Spingold, there are 256 players in the playing room at a time. Plus some (not very many) kibitzers. I know that the LMP has gotten very large, but I'll bet there are still well under 1000 players the first day.

[cherdano]

JanM, on Mar 30 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 30 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

I haven't been to the Detroit NABC, but I can't believe that the organization banned the cell phones without giving players the possibility to check their phones with the tournament organization. That would be ridiculous.

During the Vanderbilt, players could check their phones with the directors before entering the playing rooms. That seemed to work well.
Also, someone above used the word "thousands" - remember this is only for the NABC+ events. Even on the first (or second since there are many byes the first) day of the Spingold, there are 256 players in the playing room at a time. Plus some (not very many) kibitzers. I know that the LMP has gotten very large, but I'll bet there are still well under 1000 players the first day.

Note that it applies to "nationally rated" events, not just NABC+ - e.g. I understand all the Mini-LMPs are affected, too.

P.S.: I think the rule is sensible for the later rounds of the team knockouts, e.g. from the point on where they start using screens.

[Trinidad]

JanM, on Mar 30 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 30 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

I haven't been to the Detroit NABC, but I can't believe that the organization banned the cell phones without giving players the possibility to check their phones with the tournament organization. That would be ridiculous.

During the Vanderbilt, players could check their phones with the directors before entering the playing rooms. That seemed to work well.

So, it seemed to work well, the very first time the regulation was in place.

wtp?

Rik

[Trinidad]

cherdano, on Mar 30 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

P.S.: I think the rule is sensible for the later rounds of the team knockouts, e.g. from the point on where they start using screens.

The screen criterion seems sensible to me too. After all, why try to stop hi tech communication devices when you allow the low tech communications?

In all other competitions, I would not ban phones. I would only ban ringing phones. Just because ringing phones are irritating for other players while silent phones are not.

Rik