[mike777]

matmat, on Mar 27 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

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.

that is kind of the point of the ban......the phone is not accessible......

silent or off is just useless.... Many will not even turn the phone off, see poll.

As I said if this is really the major thing you guys make it out to be the ban will last one day.

[mike777]

btw at the team trials or WC what are the procedures for safekeeping and returning the phones between rounds.

They must have a thousand phones in the early rounds of WC.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Mar 28 2008, 06:29 AM, said:

They must have a thousand phones in the early rounds of WC.

What? Are we not allowed to use cell phones in the Water Cooler either?

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Mar 28 2008, 07:29 AM, said:

mike777, on Mar 28 2008, 06:29 AM, said:

They must have a thousand phones in the early rounds of WC.

What? Are we not allowed to use cell phones in the Water Cooler either?

Of course not. Helene!....

[Walddk]

I don't own a mobile and have survived, bridge or not bridge. I am actually allergic to mobiles; they give me goose bumps, not least when they go off while I teach. I am dying to take them, one by one, and throw them out of the window.

In fact, I hold the East Danish record in "Mobile Throwing from the Second Floor". 41 meters and 22 centimeters into head wind

I can only think of one item that's worse than a mobile: chewing gum! So as far as I'm concerned, I think everyone should glue their chewing gum to their mobiles and throw them away.

Roland

[matmat]

Walddk, on Mar 28 2008, 02:53 AM, said:

I don't own a mobile and have survived, bridge or not bridge. I am actually allergic to mobiles; they give me goose bumps, not least when they go off while I teach. I am dying to take them, one by one, and throw them out of the window.

In fact, I hold the East Danish record in "Mobile Throwing from the Second Floor". 41 meters and 22 centimeters into head wind

I can only think of one item that's worse than a mobile: chewing gum! So as far as I'm concerned, I think everyone should glue their chewing gum to their mobiles and throw them away.

Roland

I think chewing gum at the bridge table is rude.

[effervesce]

Depends; bad breath is even worse than chewing IMO.

[Apollo81]

I can sort of understand this policy for late rounds of NABC+ events that dont have a lot of players left (Vanderbilt round of 8, NAOP final, etc) because it would be relatively easy to set up a phone checkin system for such a small number of people. I can also see why this is OK for the USBF trials since everyone (pretty much) stays in the host hotel.

How on earth is this going to work for an event like the 1st day of the LM pairs? People aren't going to leave their phones in their rooms in another hotel, that's for sure.

[TimG]

It's funny, I was initially opposed to the ban, not because I thought it particularly unreasonable, but rather because I thought it impractical and I thought it did not address more important issues of playing conditions that make illegal communication (with or without hi-tech devices) trivial.

But, upon reading the many posts in the multiple threads, I'm more inclined to support the ban. The reasons against have mostly been along the lines of putting personal convenience above the integrity of the event. As someone else has mentioned, many of those speaking against the ban sound like spoiled brats. As such, they don't garner much sympathy.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Mar 28 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

But, upon reading the many posts in the multiple threads, I'm more inclined to support the ban. The reasons against have mostly been along the lines of putting personal convenience above the integrity of the event. As someone else has mentioned, many of those speaking against the ban sound like spoiled brats. As such, they don't garner much sympathy.

I don't think that its at all strange to discover individuals place a high value on personal convenience... (Moreover, I don't think anyone came across as particularly bratty)

For better or worse, most folks use some kind of cost benefit analysis when they decide whether or not to obey a law:

The Law says that I can't drive above 65 miles an hour, but I do because I often want to minimize the time I spend in a car

The rules say that everyone must carry a complete convention card documenting their agreements, but hardly anyone does

I'm a realist. I know that if folks needs to decide between

1. Obeying some stupid new rule
2. Maintaining the convenience of having a cell phone in their pocket for after the game

Choice 2 is going to win out a hell of the lot of the time.

Don't get me wrong, its certainly possible to mobilize broad popular support for some very inconvenient laws. However, the folks being inconvenienced need to believe that the problem is real and the solution is necessary.

I don't think that the ACBL has done any of the necessary leg work... They simply handed some random new regulation, with the obvious expectation that the high esteem that the membership at large holds for the BoD will cause them all to fall right in line...

Yeah, right

[TimG]

I'm just telling you the impression I am getting from reading the various threads. I was hoping to be able to come back and tone it down before anyone had quoted my post. "Brat" was probably too strong, but I still don't have much sympathy for most of the complaints.

[cherdano]

TimG, on Mar 28 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

The reasons against have mostly been along the lines of putting personal convenience above the integrity of the event.

I don't think a cell phone ban has much to do with integrity of the first day of LMP or the first round of one of the big team knockouts. I doubt the TD will follow any of the participants of the LMP when they use a 5 minute break between rounds to go for a smoke outside the hotel.

[TimG]

cherdano, on Mar 28 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

I don't think a cell phone ban has much to do with integrity of the first day of LMP or the first round of one of the big team knockouts.

If I was going to cheat in one of the big KOs, I'd do it in the early rounds -- otherwise I'd be out of the event before I got a chance.

[cherdano]

TimG, on Mar 28 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 28 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

I don't think a cell phone ban has much to do with integrity of the first day of LMP or the first round of one of the big team knockouts.

If I was going to cheat in one of the big KOs, I'd do it in the early rounds -- otherwise I'd be out of the event before I got a chance.

So what? The cell phone ban will do exactly nothing to stop you from doing so. The only thing it achieves is to make it a little more inconvenient to cheat.

[TimG]

cherdano, on Mar 28 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 28 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 28 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

I don't think a cell phone ban has much to do with integrity of the first day of LMP or the first round of one of the big team knockouts.

If I was going to cheat in one of the big KOs, I'd do it in the early rounds -- otherwise I'd be out of the event before I got a chance.

So what? The cell phone ban will do exactly nothing to stop you from doing so. The only thing it achieves is to make it a little more inconvenient to cheat.

I think those opposing the cell phone ban would be better served by focusing on the effects on the game rather than the personal convenience. Productive discussion would center on how conditions could be changed to make cheating more difficult and how the cell phone ban does not address the problem in a significant way.

Players who oppose the ban ought to be saying: I agree that cheating is an important issue and that steps should be taken to prevent cheating, but I don't think this ban addresses the real issue...here is what the ACBL could do if they were truly serious about preventing cheating and removing the appearance of impropriety.

Instead, the focus has been: this rule is ridiculous, I want to be able to call my friends, be reached by family/work, etc., with little or no mention of the things ACBL should have done (and still could do) to address the issue.

[matmat]

TimG, on Mar 28 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

I think those opposing the cell phone ban would be better served by focusing on the effects on the game rather than the personal convenience. Productive discussion would center on how conditions could be changed to make cheating more difficult and how the cell phone ban does not address the problem in a significant way.

Players who oppose the ban ought to be saying: I agree that cheating is an important issue and that steps should be taken to prevent cheating, but I don't think this ban addresses the real issue...here is what the ACBL could do if they were truly serious about preventing cheating and removing the appearance of impropriety.

Instead, the focus has been: this rule is ridiculous, I want to be able to call my friends, be reached by family/work, etc., with little or no mention of the things ACBL should have done (and still could do) to address the issue.

Convenience is one thing, but there are a couple more things that bother me here. For one, it takes away from my enjoyment of the whole trip; not necessarily the bridge event itself, but certainly the whole package. I am obviously not a pro (probably a few lifetimes of getting better at the game removed from being one), and if/when i go to play it is for fun, to enjoy the atmosphere and to hang out with people I know, bridge or otherwise. Cell phones going off during a session would certainly piss me off, especially if I thought that the rings were conveying any sort of message, but you know what? I am going to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt on this one... they're certainly rude to leave the phone on, but to accuse them of cheating solely on the basis of the phone going off? which brings me to my next point... does anyone feel like this is the acbl saying to the membership: "we can't trust you not to cheat, and as a consequence you have to forfeit your right to carry electronic devices." To me this is perilously close to accusing the mebership at large of mass cheating.

[mike777]

I think this raises the same points David C makes and they are worth discussing.

If convenience is most important then the ban will only last a day.

As the other thread points out, not only do people not want to turn "off" their phones, some seem to keep them on at the table.

Wolff argues for the opposite. "We must maintain ceaseless vigilance against the small minority of players for whom no price is too high in the search of success. THE HONOR OF BRIDGE MUST BE PRESERVED AT ANY COST!" (HIS ITALICS)


"Cheating comes our way at all levels of the game, in varying degrees and in many venues."



"The classified records of the ACBL are filled with documented information and lengthy dossiers on some of the perpetrators of bridge crimes..."

He goes on at length about the lack of security for online ACBL games.

[matmat]

mike777, on Mar 28 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

"The classified records of the ACBL are filled with documented information and lengthy dossiers on some of the perpetrators of bridge crimes..."

ok.
so why are these records classified? surely this is neither to protect the innocent nor for reasons of national security...

[mike777]

matmat, on Mar 28 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

mike777, on Mar 28 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

"The classified records of the ACBL are filled with documented information and lengthy dossiers on some of the perpetrators of bridge crimes..."

ok.
so why are these records classified? surely this is neither to protect the innocent nor for reasons of national security...

Good question to call up Memphis and let us know. My guess and it is only a guess is they are sick and tired of lawsuits, endless lawsuits over this whole issue.

Even the China sign incident got lawyers and lawyers involved...that costs thousands if not the threat of millions...

Would not be shocked if there is a suit over this cell phone ban....that costs thousands or more to defend.

[brianshark]

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.