[barmar]

jdonn, on Mar 12 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

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.

This silly rule doesn't even apply to most players, except during the first round of some popular national events like the LM Pairs and Blue Ribbon Pairs. Is the Red Ribbon Pairs included in this rule? It's probably the only national event where average players are in the field for the entire event.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Mar 12 2008, 01:05 PM, said:

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.

Totally agree. I've seen this enforced at regionals when it first came out, and then the directors stopped caring.

[TimG]

barmar, on Mar 12 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

This silly rule doesn't even apply to most players, except during the first round of some popular national events like the LM Pairs and Blue Ribbon Pairs. Is the Red Ribbon Pairs included in this rule? It's probably the only national event where average players are in the field for the entire event.

It applies to all flights of the GNT and NAP, as well as things like the Red Ribbon Pairs, Mini-Spingold, etc. -- anything that is nationally rated.

[barmar]

I've never understood why the "Turn off your cellphones" rule is so hard for people to follow. The directors make an announcement at the beginning of every session. What's so hard about reaching into your pocketbook (I don't want to sound chauvinistic, but it's practically always women) and turning off the damn phone? It's certainly easier than scrambling to find the phone and hit the Ignore button when it goes off during the session.

[awm]

TimG, on Mar 12 2008, 04:14 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 12 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

This silly rule doesn't even apply to most players, except during the first round of some popular national events like the LM Pairs and Blue Ribbon Pairs.  Is the Red Ribbon Pairs included in this rule?  It's probably the only national event where average players are in the field for the entire event.

It applies to all flights of the GNT and NAP, as well as things like the Red Ribbon Pairs, Mini-Spingold, etc. -- anything that is nationally rated.

Um, mini-spingold, red ribbons, NAP B, and so forth are not nationally rated. Nationally rated means NABC+ events, a.k.a. the events that count as national championships for the purposes of Grand Life Master, a.k.a. the events that hand out platinum colored points if you place.

All of these are unlimited open events with regard to masterpoint holding (but not necessarily with regard to age/gender). The "limited events" are not "nationally rated."

[JanM]

The WBF has had this rule in effect for several years, with AFAIK no complaints.

Cellphones are not being allowed in the Vanderbilt playing rooms today (I have 2 in my pocket right now). No one has complained.

[TimG]

awm, on Mar 12 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

Um, mini-spingold, red ribbons, NAP B, and so forth are not nationally rated. Nationally rated means NABC+ events, a.k.a. the events that count as national championships for the purposes of Grand Life Master, a.k.a. the events that hand out platinum colored points if you place.

All of these are unlimited open events with regard to masterpoint holding (but not necessarily with regard to age/gender). The "limited events" are not "nationally rated."

ACBL seems to disagree with you:

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.

[mike777]

TimG, on Mar 9 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

From the March 9 Bulletin:

Quote

Electronic devices, excluding health-related
equipment, capable of sending or receiving
communication, including but not limited to,
headphones, earphones, cellular phones and minicomputers:
(1) shall not be allowed in the playing
areas, adjacent hallways, restrooms or accessible
break areas; and (2) shall not be used during a
session.

These restrictions shall apply to all pairs, team
members, captains, coaches, recorders and kibitzers
and shall apply throughout any actual playing session
or segment.

A violation of this policy shall result in a
disciplinary penalty of one full board (or 12 IMPs at
that form of scoring) for the first offense. A second
offense shall result in disqualification from the event
for the pair/team.

Kibitzers violating this policy shall be removed
from the playing area for the remainder of the session.

Does this mean no vugraph operators in the playing area?

This sounds as if they expect and want the directors to take this rule seriously. I did not see any explanation in the announcement of why they are doing this.

Bobby Wolff argues that protecting the honor of the game at any cost should be the sole objective of those in command.

He repeats stories of people talking on phones during live matches and how this at last leaves a perception of something strange going on and how people should not even place themselves in such a position.

Bobby Wolff in his new book, Lone Wolff, has quite alot to say about cheating at the top levels of bridge. He claims World Championships have been won and lost by cheating. He writes that the classified records of the ACBL are filled with documented information and lengthy dossiers on some of the perpetrators of bridge crimes.

He argues that enforcement of more rigid regulations regarding freedom of movement during a live contest should be mandatory. This includes going to the restroom.

He discusses the unsolved problem of security in Online/Internet ACBL games.

[awm]

JanM, on Mar 12 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

The WBF has had this rule in effect for several years, with AFAIK no complaints.

Cellphones are not being allowed in the Vanderbilt playing rooms today (I have 2 in my pocket right now). No one has complained.

The real question is, how many penalties have been handed out?

I'm sure if this rule is not enforced, no one will care that it's on the books.

What I'm really worried about is that it will be enforced selectively.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 12 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

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.

Hear, hear!

When I first heard of the much-vaunted "Zero Tolerance Policy" first advocated, as I understand it, in the Toronto area, and later adopted (in theory) ACBL-wide, I asked "what for? we already have laws for that." Turns out the ZT policy is also enforced sporadically at best.

[jillybean]

jdonn, on Mar 12 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

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.

Of course your’e right, my bad wording. A 'keep the payers happy' approach rather than 'enforce the laws' is perhaps at the root of the problem.

[Trinidad]

finally17, on Mar 12 2008, 08:47 AM, said:

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

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

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. []

No, square brackets ('[]') are used to indicate that the text between them is different from the original quote. Emphasizing (e.g. boldfacing) quoted text is used to clarify what part of the quote you are commenting on. (You give the rest of the quote to keep the context.) Jokes are indicated by smileys.

As an aside: Since I had read the previous posts it was clear to me that it was a joke. But not everybody reads all previous posts.

finally17, on Mar 12 2008, 08:47 AM, said:

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

This was obviously a standard webforum joke. I fixed it by adding a smiley, between square brackets.

Rik

[foo]

1= The simplest way to deal with unwanted communication devices in the playing area is to JAM THEM. That is exactly what many bars and restaurants now do. The equipment involved is cheap.

2= Some folks have a legitimate need to be reachable at all times. And it is not even just for work. If my pregnant wife needs to reach me, Bridge comes a distant second to her. If the ACBL makes it impossible for my due wife to reach me, I will not be playing in ACBL events where that situation exists. I'm sure we can all easily imagine other circumstances that are similar in importance.

3= Being polite takes no more than PUT THE D@MN PHONE ON SILENT OR VIBRATE AND DO NOT ANSWER IT IN THE PLAYING AREA.

4= A regulation banning communication devices is not going to stop, or even slow down, premeditated cheaters.

If the real goal here is to reduce cheating at the NABC level, we should do what casinos do. A camera watching every table. A camera in every bathroom.
The cameras involved can be very small and dirt cheap.

Suspicious results or suspected attempts at inappropriate communication will then be consderably easier to confirm or deny.

At national and international events, every bid and card at the table should be recorded as a matter of course. Even for those events where screens are not used.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Mar 13 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

1= The simplest way to deal with unwanted communication devices in the playing area is to JAM THEM.  That is exactly what many bars and restaurants now do.  The equipment involved is cheap.

Might want to look at the following

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm...s_2&id=cellular


added by uday (from that URL posted by richard )
"
...The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934 ......
"

[finally17]

yah, the idea that restaurants jam sounds like urban myth to me.

[foo]

finally17, on Mar 13 2008, 09:34 AM, said:

yah, the idea that restaurants jam sounds like urban myth to me.

Some do. I've proven it in a few. Obviously, their owners have dealt with the legal issues to their satisfaction.

[foo]

hrothgar, on Mar 13 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

foo, on Mar 13 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

1= The simplest way to deal with unwanted communication devices in the playing area is to JAM THEM.  That is exactly what many bars and restaurants now do.  The equipment involved is cheap.

Might want to look at the following

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm...s_2&id=cellular


added by uday (from that URL posted by richard )
"
...The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934 ......
"

Evidently, there are legal loopholes and ways around that. IANAL. Someone who is should be consulted if the discussion goes to that depth.

Here is some counterpoint to suggest that the legal situation is not cut and dry:
" In most countries, it is illegal for private citizens to jam cell-phone transmission, but some countries are allowing businesses and government organizations to install jammers in areas where cell-phone use is seen as a public nuisance.
In December 2004, France legalized cell-phone jammers in movie theaters, concert halls and other places with performances. France is finalizing technology that will let calls to emergency services go through.
India has installed jammers in parliament and some prisons.
It has been reported that universities in Italy have adopted the technology to prevent cheating. Students were taking photos of tests with their camera phones and sending them to classmates."

However, as I previously stated, I do not think jamming is the best strategy if prevention or detection of cheating is the goal. Nor do I think most players are going to put up with not being reachable for important matters.

The real solution is to duplicate the security measures casinos use as much as is needed. ATM, the costs involved would indicate that NABCs and International events should get this level of security. As costs decrease, we can look forward to seeing it in Regionals as well.

Side note: had such security existed, Edith Rosenkranz would either not been kidnapped or would have been recovered far more quickly. There is more than simply the prevention of cheating that make using cameras extensively at tournaments a good idea.

[hrothgar]

foo, on Mar 13 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

The real solution is to duplicate the security measures casinos use as much as is needed. ATM, the costs involved would indicate that NABCs and International events should get this level of security. As costs decrease, we can look forward to seeing it in Regionals as well.

1. Casinos own their own facilities. They typically run gaming operations 24x7.

The ACBL rents rooms from hotels. Nationals run 7-10 days, with 3 or so sessions a day. The cost dynamics are completely different

2. Casinos have lots of skin in the game. If a player at a casino is being cheated they will typically have a large financial stake in the system. For example, if someone cheats at Blackjack they are taking money directly from the casino.

The ACBL doesn't have much skin in the game. In theory, the organization has a vested interest in ensuring the integrity of the game. However, the consequences from cheating aren;t nearly as immediate.

[jdonn]

3. The cameras are generally not closely monitored. It's more of an operation to tape things so they can be checked back if something wasn't right at a certain place or time, not an operation to observe things as they occur. It's not like someone is just sitting there trying to catch everything as it happens.

By the way, there is not "a camera in every bathroom". That is illegal.

I actually don't object to the playing area being taped. But the misconceptions surrounding that should certainly be cleared up.

Last point: The point about the kidnapping is totally absurd.

[foo]

jdonn, on Mar 13 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

By the way, there is not "a camera in every bathroom". That is illegal.

I actually don't object to the playing area being taped. But the misconceptions surrounding that should certainly be cleared up.

Last point: The point about the kidnapping is totally absurd.

No, it is illegal to have camera's in the =stalls= or private baths.
The semi-public areas of the bathroom in a privately owned company are fair game for video taping. Many companies are doing stuff like this to employees (...as well as recording every keystroke they make on their company PC and every phone call they make on the company phone and ...)

Agree with 2nd sentence.

You have no idea what you are talking about with regards the 3rd.