[JanM]

blackshoe, on Mar 10 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

I'm sorry, sir/ma'am. Electronic devices are prohibited here. You will have leave your pacemaker in your room.

There is an exception for medical devices. Also, I don't know of any pacemaker that can communicate to other equipment, do you?

[finally17]

hrothgar, on Mar 10 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

Please recall, the goal is not to come up with a mechanism to detect a random cell phone. The goal is to come up with a mechanism to detect electronic communications systems that are being use to cheat.

Not really. My goal was just to say that I'm sure they could still be detected, when you said they couldn't .

Anyway, I think it's a stupid rule. Ruling that they have to be off, penalizing if they ring or are used is one thing, but forcing people to leave them in their rooms is just going to have the effect of punishing paying customers for making the mistake of forgetting, when such forgetfulness will, the vast majority of the time, have zero effect on the game.

It probably also has a gender bias, as a heck of a lot more men carry their cell phones visibly (attached to their belts) than women, who tend to have them in their purses.

I don't know about this "arms race" thing, there just isn't that much incentive to cheat, at least not in anything but the upper upper echelons. But as has been said, if people want to, this ban isn't going to stop them.

[finally17]

JanM, on Mar 10 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 10 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

I'm sorry, sir/ma'am. Electronic devices are prohibited here. You will have leave your pacemaker in your room.

There is an exception for medical devices. Also, I don't know of any pacemaker that can communicate to other equipment, do you?

Yes, actually. I just checked to make sure, and I'm not sure what they use, but modern pacemakers definitely can report recorded information and be set externally, with no needles, so I assume it's some kind of radio signal.

However, the extension to this discussion is rather far-fetched and I only mention it for amusement's sake.

[barmar]

TimG, on Mar 10 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

david_c, on Mar 10 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

I don't know much about what happens in America. But where I come from, bridge competitions are run for the benefit of the players. The most important thing is making sure your average player has a good time.

You average player isn't playing in the events for which these rules are intended. And, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that players who enter NABC Championship events play under different conditions than those playing in the Regionally rated side games (and have fun doing it).

But the rule isn't just for NABC Championship events, it's for the entire NABC. 99% of the players at an NABC are just average and novice players, they're not entered in any major events.

I agree that this is an unenforceable rule. I think they're just trying to sound more serious about it than the old rule that just prohibited cell phones going off during the game. The problem they had was that no matter how clearly they announced at the beginning of each session "Please turn off your cell phones", inevitably someone's phone would ring.

The other issue I think they're trying to address is the greater power available in handheld devices these days. It used to be that the only problem was that a pager or cell phone going off would disturb the other players. Nowadays, handheld computers (e.g. Blackberry, iPhone) have the power and features of laptop computers. This is obviously raising concerns over how they might be used illicitly.

[cherdano]

barmar, on Mar 10 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 10 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

david_c, on Mar 10 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

I don't know much about what happens in America. But where I come from, bridge competitions are run for the benefit of the players. The most important thing is making sure your average player has a good time.

You average player isn't playing in the events for which these rules are intended. And, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that players who enter NABC Championship events play under different conditions than those playing in the Regionally rated side games (and have fun doing it).

But the rule isn't just for NABC Championship events, it's for the entire NABC. 99% of the players at an NABC are just average and novice players, they're not entered in any major events.

That's not quite correct, it applies to all nationally rated events, not the regional or side events.

[TimG]

barmar, on Mar 10 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

But the rule isn't just for NABC Championship events, it's for the entire NABC.  99% of the players at an NABC are just average and novice players, they're not entered in any major events.

From the article announcing the new rule:

Quote

The electronics ban will apply to all NABC (national-level) events, but not to regional or Intermediate-Newcomer contests.

And:

Quote

Participants in nationally rated events (which include not only the top-level NABC+ games but also masterpoint-restricted contests such as the Mini-Spingolds, Mini-Blue Ribbon Pairs, National 199er and 99er Pairs and lower flights of the North American Pairs and Grand National Teams) will be reminded not to approach the playing area with a personal electronic device in their possession, even if the device is turned off.

I believe the ban is for Championship (nationally rated) events only.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Is a digital watch a "personal electronic device"? How about a remote car starter (or even just a remote that sounds the horn/flashes the lights?

Will they have security guards at the entrances to frisk players as they enter?

[awm]

This ruling seems very problematic for people with a busy life outside of bridge. For such people:

(1) Sometimes there is a need to be able to check in at work. This is especially true of doctors who need to be on call, but also true of a lot of people (for example IT professionals) who need to be accessible in case of an emergency at the office. Certainly it is reasonable to require these people to keep their cell-phones off during the session, but not allowing them to make a call out in the hallway between sessions seems excessive.

(2) Nationals are a rare opportunity to catch up with bridge playing friends from other parts of the country. In a huge tournament like an NABC calling your friends after the session to arrange a dinner date is almost a necessity.

(3) Cell phones can be used for things like getting directions and making dinner reservations as well.

(4) Some cell phones are very expensive, particularly businesspeople often have pricey phones. Checking these phones (or leaving them in a hotel room) is not very desirable.

This is not the first decision by ACBL which seems to really hurt a substantial part of the bridge playing population. Early start times were another that came to mind -- when I complained about that the response I got was "arrive a week early" which is obviously not possible for someone trying to hold down a full-time (non-bridge) job.

In my eleven years as an ACBL member (living in three different districts) I have never once been given a ballot to vote for any proposal, or to vote for my representative on any board at any level. My impression is that the unit boards are usually a matter of who can volunteer the time, and that the higher-up representatives are then elected by the unit board. This creates a situation where people with full-time (non-bridge) jobs simply don't have time to serve and are therefore completely disenfranchised. I'm sure that the people on the board aren't actively trying to "screw us over" but like anyone would, they consistently make decisions that "make sense to them" which normally means decisions that make some sense for them and their friends, a group which usually includes a lot of people with similar age and career status (i.e. typically retired and/or full-time bridge players). If bridge is to survive and grow, it needs to be appealing to a wide variety of people, and this sort of decision is not beneficial to the game.

How about if ACBL takes a vote on this among participants in some NABC+ event (say the next Spingold)?

[Codo]

People like mycroft and JanM gave enough advice why the ban is enabled and how you can procced.

But still the frigthend mobile phone users panic.

1. There are doctors and IT-workers who needs their phones. Right now - under the current laws- these guys are not allowed to have the phones switched on. They need to give their phone to the director. They will still be able to do so with the new rules.

2. I need my phone to contact my friends. I am really sorry that you are not able to make your appointments before the NABC or with some messages you leave at a counter. I am with TimG, the mobile phone makes it easier, but it is still possible to arrange it in a different way.

3. You need to make dining reservations etc. True. But again, why do you need to make this while playing?

4. It is so easy to cheat, there is no need to ban mobile phones. I just bild my own radio into my shoes or belt and here we go. This argument is silly. If you follow this logic, you may ban all screens and bidding boxes too. They make cheating harder but they do not stop it completely.
Of course it makes cheating more diffcult if no mobile phones are avaiable. And of course it is still possible to cheat, but this is true for all improvements.


But if the goal really is to stop electronical cheating, it will be a much better solution if you do not transmit the current standings/hands/plays on vuegraph. I think you should make a 5/10/30 minute delay into the transmission. This will disable anybody besides the players to make any meaningful signal about a given board.

[matmat]

Codo, on Mar 11 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

4. It is so easy to cheat, there is no need to ban mobile phones. I just bild my own radio into my shoes or belt and here we go. This argument is silly. If you follow this logic, you may ban all screens and bidding boxes too. They make cheating harder but they do not stop it completely.
Of course it makes cheating more diffcult if no mobile phones are avaiable. And of course it is still possible to cheat, but this is true for all improvements.

screens and bidding boxes help eliminate ethical problems due to unintentional hitches, hesitations, facial reactions of people with poor poker faces etc. (and yes, some intentional ones, and yes, bidding boxes have a whole set of other problems associated with them). Nobody accidentally texts their holding to their partner. "Sorry, director, my fingers slipped and sent "S" to partner."

If we're worried about signals coming in from outside then the point is that concealing a cell phone, or a receiver or whatnot is easy and I doubt directors are going to strip-search the players? Those that are motivated to cheat are not going to be stopped by an impossible to enforce ban, whereas it will definitely inconvenience the general population. or, hell, how are you going to check if a hearing aid is a hearing aid and not a receiver?

If cheating using cell phones has become a problem, why are the names of the cheaters not being published or at least the instances? seems like public shaming might do some good?
This is just another case of the entire population having to pay for the actions of the few. I thought collective punishment kinda went out a while ago. This kind of regulation made me sick when I was in school and it makes me sick now.

If the issue is distraction due to phones ringing, etc, then police that situation as it happens, eventually the offenders will learn to turn the damned things off. Have stiff penalties for this.


edit -- transmitting the hand to vugraph with a delay would take away a little bit of the interaction between the operator and the commentators, but it is certainly a reasonable solution.

[TimG]

awm, on Mar 11 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

This is not the first decision by ACBL which seems to really hurt a substantial part of the bridge playing population. Early start times were another that came to mind -- when I complained about that the response I got was "arrive a week early" which is obviously not possible for someone trying to hold down a full-time (non-bridge) job.

I don't understand the complaints about early starting times. Don't most people who have a full-time (non-bridge) job work during daytime hours? So, when you go to a bridge tournament and are expected to play from about 1-4:30 in the afternoon and again from about 7:30-11:00, isn't this quite a bit different from your normal routine? Wouldn't morning and afternoon sessions be more like a regular work day, i.e require less adjustment?

There will always be time zone issues and there are people who work unusual shifts so that no starting times are going to be best for everyone. It would seem that daytime play would be a reasonable approximation of most folks' normal workday. But, early starting times don't mean that people have to wake up at the same time as they normally do in order to get to work. Not only are they unlikely to have a morning commute at a NABC, the starting time is sometime like 10:00, not the more typical 8:00 (or so) that people tend to show up for work. Is the typical person with a full-time (non-bridge) job really more alert at 11:00 PM than they are at 10:00 AM?

[Elianna]

When the early start times are at the East Coast NABCs, this is like playing bridge at 7am to a West Coaster. That's where the comment of "arrive a week earlier" was made to us.

And it's rather funny, as early start times seem to be much more common at the East Coast NABCs than at West Coast ones (where early start times would be beneficial for East Coasters).

I for one would be really unhappy waiting a half hour (or longer?!?) after the session to pick up my cell phone. And just to give some people an illusory feeling that there isn't cheating going on?

[barmar]

Now that it's been clarified that this extreme rule is only for the nationally-rated events, not everything, I don't think it's so bad. I'm still not sure that they're going to be able to enforce it in the early rounds. Events like the Life Master Pairs attract about as many entrants as the regional pair events, and the qualifying round is often played in the same ballroom as everything else. It seems like it would be difficult for them to enforce more stringent rules for this. However, when they get funnelled down to the finals, they could conceivably frisk all the entrants.

[h2osmom]

I really like the idea of far more simultaneous play, in team matches as well as pairs events. One of the only things I don't care for in team games is no hand records. And this suggestion is vastly superior to banning cell phones. I would not be happy at all to be frisked at an NABC, I am definitely a novice player, and yet I do enter NABC+ events, at least one, at every tournament I attend. I am tired of having my individual rights be trampled on in the name of protecting me. I think taking reasonable precautions, and then recognizing that nothing will stop all of it, is a good approach, including simultaneous play in as much as possible.

[rbforster]

barmar, on Mar 11 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Now that it's been clarified that this extreme rule is only for the nationally-rated events, it's still stupid and ineffective.

Fixed that for you.

[Trinidad]

Rob F, on Mar 12 2008, 04:11 AM, said:

barmar, on Mar 11 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Now that it's been clarified that this extreme rule is only for the nationally-rated events, it's still stupid and ineffective.

Fixed that for you.

Please don't change people's quotes, not even by 'fixing' them.

As to the contents of the discussion, the rule is certainly not stupid. The objective is not to prevent cheating (there are tons of ways to cheat if you would want to). It is to prevent unpleasant disturbance by ringing phones in the playing room. You can compare it to enforcing a smoking ban. A lot of people are annoyed by a ringing cell phone when they try to concentrate (which is what tournament bridge is all about).

Of course, you can give penalties for ringing phones (which is what I would opt for) but obviously the easiest way to keep ring tones out of the playing area is to keep the phones out.

In the exceptional case, where you have to be on call, talk to the TD. I am sure that he will either manage your phone for you or will allow you to carry your phone under certain conditions (e.g. you program it to only ring when the call comes from the emergency number. Most modern cell phones have such a function.)

And to be clear: Being on call is an exceptional case reserved for medical emergencies and heads of state. An IT professional is not 'on call'.

Rik

[finally17]

Trinidad, on Mar 12 2008, 06:09 AM, said:

1.

Rob F, on Mar 12 2008, 04:11 AM, said:

barmar, on Mar 11 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Now that it's been clarified that this extreme rule is only for the nationally-rated events, it's still stupid and ineffective.

Fixed that for you.

Please don't change people's quotes, not even by 'fixing' them.

2. Of course, you can give penalties for ringing phones (which is what I would opt for) but obviously the easiest way to keep ring tones out of the playing area is to keep the phones out.

3. And to be clear: Being on call is an exceptional case reserved for medical emergencies and heads of state. An IT professional is not 'on call'.

Rik

To the first: It's a standard webforum joke, it was very clearly edited, lighten up a bit.

To the second: Umm, no, not even close. Searching people for phones is HARD. Enforcing stiff penalties if they ring is EASY.

To the third: Man, you're crazy. IT problems can cost a company boatloads of money. Of course they're "on call."

[barmar]

Trinidad, on Mar 12 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

As to the contents of the discussion, the rule is certainly not stupid. The objective is not to prevent cheating (there are tons of ways to cheat if you would want to). It is to prevent unpleasant disturbance by ringing phones in the playing room. You can compare it to enforcing a smoking ban. A lot of people are annoyed by a ringing cell phone when they try to concentrate (which is what tournament bridge is all about).

They already have a different rule that's intended to address that problem. For quite a few years the rule has been that cell phones and pagers must be turned off in the playing areas. A phone going off can result in a penalty. One of my friends was even penalized for using his cell phone in the playing area after the session was over (he started dialing while walking to the exit).

This is a new, more stringent rule that only applies to high-level events, and says that you can't even have the device on your person, even if it's turned off. It's presumably intended to solve a different problem.

[jillybean]

barmar, on Mar 12 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 12 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

As to the contents of the discussion, the rule is certainly not stupid. The objective is not to prevent cheating (there are tons of ways to cheat if you would want to). It is to prevent unpleasant disturbance by ringing phones in the playing room. You can compare it to enforcing a smoking ban. A lot of people are annoyed by a ringing cell phone when they try to concentrate (which is what tournament bridge is all about).

They already have a different rule that's intended to address that problem. For quite a few years the rule has been that cell phones and pagers must be turned off in the playing areas. A phone going off can result in a penalty. One of my friends was even penalized for using his cell phone in the playing area after the session was over (he started dialing while walking to the exit).

This is a new, more stringent rule that only applies to high-level events, and says that you can't even have the device on your person, even if it's turned off. It's presumably intended to solve a different problem.

That rule is ineffective, who hasn’t been interrupted by a phone going off during a game? People obviously don’t use the OFF or vibrate option. Shame the ban does not cover all events!

If enforced it will make for a better playing atmosphere but I don't know how effective it will be to prevent cheating.

[jdonn]

jillybean2, on Mar 12 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

That rule is ineffective, who hasn’t been interrupted by a phone going off during a game?

The rule is not ineffective, it is just enforced sporadically at best. Almost every time someone's phone goes off they don't get penalized, it should be an automatic penalty and then we wouldn't need this silly rule that goes way too far and makes life inconvenient for people who weren't harming anyone.