[rbforster]

david_c, on Mar 30 2008, 07:00 AM, said:

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.

Exactly. I think this point bears repeating until the people who passed this rule get a clue. When more than 70% of the 50+ people polled recently thought the new rule was bad enough to disobey it in some way, the people making the rules clearly aren't following the desires of the masses. The average player who attends a National plays for fun, hopes to do well, and doesn't come close to winning anything of note. For these players, it's clear from the recent polls and sentiment that the majority would rather have their phones accessible and unhassled, than making it merely easy to cheat (rather than very easy) for those so inclined.

Perhaps this all points to a conflict of interest between the bridge professionals who often populate the ACBL governing committees and the average competitive player. The bridge pro's are the ones for whom the "integrity" of the sport means big bucks. After all, why would any one sponsor a top tier team if they thought they'd just lose to a bunch of cheaters? You could just cheat yourself and do quite well, without paying for all that hired talent. If I were a committee bridge pro and saw this as a threat to my livelihood, you can bet I'd vote for more "apparent security" (ala this ban) even if I knew it wouldn't matter much and that it would inconvenience the average player enough they wouldn't actually want the rule if given a choice..

[TimG]

Rob F, on Mar 31 2008, 02:32 AM, said:

david_c, on Mar 30 2008, 07:00 AM, said:

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.

Exactly. I think this point bears repeating until the people who passed this rule get a clue. When more than 70% of the 50+ people polled recently thought the new rule was bad enough to disobey it in some way, the people making the rules clearly aren't following the desires of the masses. The average player who attends a National plays for fun, hopes to do well, and doesn't come close to winning anything of note. For these players, it's clear from the recent polls and sentiment that the majority would rather have their phones accessible and unhassled, than making it merely easy to cheat (rather than very easy) for those so inclined.

Perhaps this all points to a conflict of interest between the bridge professionals who often populate the ACBL governing committees and the average competitive player. The bridge pro's are the ones for whom the "integrity" of the sport means big bucks. After all, why would any one sponsor a top tier team if they thought they'd just lose to a bunch of cheaters? You could just cheat yourself and do quite well, without paying for all that hired talent. If I were a committee bridge pro and saw this as a threat to my livelihood, you can bet I'd vote for more "apparent security" (ala this ban) even if I knew it wouldn't matter much and that it would inconvenience the average player enough they wouldn't actually want the rule if given a choice...

Reading this post, I can't help but think this same argument could be used in favor of strict convention restrictions -- restrictions are clearly the desire of the masses, the average player attends a NABC for fun and doesn't want to be inconvenienced by facing new and difficult to defend methods...it is clear that the sentiment of the masses is that they want strict regulation of conventions. Yet, when these are given as the reasons for convention regulation, it seems a majority of forum posters dismiss this as bad for bridge.

And, some people think the pros who are on the competition committee which administers the convention charts make decisions in a way that will protect their clients from unusual methods, that is, administer with an eye towards protecting their livelihood. When they are perceived to have done this, it is viewed as a sort of corruption in the the process, not as an understandable protection of the game.

[Codo]

Rob F, on Mar 31 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

Exactly. I think this point bears repeating until the people who passed this rule get a clue. When more than 70% of the 50+ people polled recently thought the new rule was bad enough to disobey it in some way, the people making the rules clearly aren't following the desires of the masses.

Do you really think that the contributors to this forum are in any way close of the "thinking of the masses"?

Sorry, but this is simply not true, so this poll proofes really nothing compared to the masses of players ina a NABC.

[jocdelevat]

Im just curios for those who can't live witout cell phone what they did 20 years ago. I suppose they had a solution to replace the cell phone.

[TimG]

jocdelevat, on Mar 31 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

Im just curios for those who can't live witout cell phone what they did 20 years ago. I suppose they had a solution to replace the cell phone.

I suspect that most of the players who cannot live without a cellphone were in diapers or elementary school 20 years ago. Not all, but most.

[jtfanclub]

jocdelevat, on Mar 31 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

Im just curios for those who can't live witout cell phone what they did 20 years ago. I suppose they had a solution to replace the cell phone.

We didn't go to Nationals.

And yes, there was a solution to replace the cell phone. It was called a "pay phone". Good luck on finding a working one these days.

[sceptic]

can someone actually give a reason why you should have a cell phone with them during a Tourney?

apart from the obvious one, If I get lost going to the toilet, I need to call my partner to help me as I am not adult enough to find my way back to the table on my own

[sceptic]

A practical cure for this is, yes you can have a cell phone with you, but it must be switched of and placed on the table in full view of everyone, then the problem is no longer a problem, anyone whos phone rings loses points (define the punishment as fitting the event ) anyones phone rings and it is not on display is asked to leave the room and the other side are compensatory points (which may in effect annoy some people) but if the perpetrators of the crime where known, then everyone could give them what for during the recess

[jdonn]

Are you aware that if a cell phone is off it can not ring? Any more than you can post on the forums if your computer is turned off.

[rbforster]

jocdelevat, on Mar 31 2008, 10:15 AM, said:

Im just curios for those who can't live witout cell phone what they did 20 years ago. I suppose they had a solution to replace the cell phone.

You mean like hand, foot, and pencil signals? Yup, those still work.

[awm]

Here are some reasons:

(1) You need to be contacted because of an emergency at home or work. Obviously phone must be turned off during play, but if you don't have the phone available during the time between sessions, that means if you receive an emergency call during the afternoon session (say 1 pm) you get the news after the evening session (say midnight) rather than just a few hours later (around 5 pm when the afternoon session ends).

(2) You need to check in at work briefly before the end of working hours; i.e. after the first session. Same problem.

(3) You need to make dinner reservations or get a map of the city; phone does both these things.

(4) A friend is looking for a partner and asks you if you know anybody. You do, but have no idea where they are in the madhouse that is NABC. If you have cell phone, you can call them. Without cell phone, you probably don't even have their phone number memorized (no one memorizes phone numbers anymore, people just store them in their phone/PDA).

(5) You are sitting out the second quarter of your spingold match. You'd like to sit and listen to some music. Unfortunately your MP3 player (a.k.a your cell phone) had to be left at your hotel several miles away...

To ask the counter-question, how exactly does one use a cell phone to cheat? If you are sitting at the table texting or have a phone vibrating in your pocket, the opponents are almost always going to notice. I guess the idea is to go to the restroom and take your phone out in a stall, and then text? But it's easy enough to go into a stall and leave a note by the toilet, or pass a note to somebody. As long as we are letting people go unaccompanied and unobserved to restrooms it's pretty easy to arrange to pass messages there, cell phone or no cell phone.

Another point is that people don't necessarily object to being phone-less during play. The objection is to giving your expensive phone (that also contains a large quantity of personal data and information you "can't afford to forget") to someone who is not particularly trusted, where it can easily be stolen or damaged. Leaving it in a hotel room carries similar issues, and means that you don't "get it back after the session." Establishing some sort of trusted "cell phone storage" costs money and also creates a potential choke point before and after sessions (i.e. long lines to turn in phone or get phone back).

[sceptic]

Quote

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.

that does not hold sway, sorry but most of us are parents and I for one cant carry mobiles at work, (well not strictly true, I can in this job, but many I have not been able to) I bring up my granddaughter and I always leave her with people that I will trust to do the right thing in an emergency (I am not saying you would not do that either, but you cannot be with them 24/7)(and I am not saying that if something happened to her, I would not want to be by her side either) I am just a realist, this is a simple rule and I can not understand why so many think it is some kind of afront to thier civil liberties

I admire your 24/7 commitment, but sheesh Uday you need to have a few hours to yourself to relax and do what you enjoy, turn the phone off occasionally

[sceptic]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

Are you aware that if a cell phone is off it can not ring? Any more than you can post on the forums if your computer is turned off.

would that not indicate they had not turned it off as required?

[sceptic]

Here are some reasons:

(1) You need to be contacted because of an emergency at home or work. Obviously phone must be turned off during play, but if you don't have the phone available during the time between sessions, that means if you receive an emergency call during the afternoon session (say 1 pm) you get the news after the evening session (say midnight) rather than just a few hours later (around 5 pm when the afternoon session ends).

between sessions is not a problem, I thought the ban was when you are playing?

(2) You need to check in at work briefly before the end of working hours; i.e. after the first session. Same problem.

collect your phone after the session

(3) You need to make dinner reservations or get a map of the city; phone does both these things.

While you are in the middle of a hand?

(4) A friend is looking for a partner and asks you if you know anybody. You do, but have no idea where they are in the madhouse that is NABC. If you have cell phone, you can call them. Without cell phone, you probably don't even have their phone number memorized (no one memorizes phone numbers anymore, people just store them in their phone/PDA).

While you are in the middle of a hand?

(5) You are sitting out the second quarter of your spingold match. You'd like to sit and listen to some music. Unfortunately your MP3 player (a.k.a your cell phone) had to be left at your hotel several miles away...

now you are going to irritate other people by havving a constant noise coming from your phone?

To ask the counter-question, how exactly does one use a cell phone to cheat? If you are sitting at the table texting or have a phone vibrating in your pocket, the opponents are almost always going to notice. I guess the idea is to go to the restroom and take your phone out in a stall, and then text? But it's easy enough to go into a stall and leave a note by the toilet, or pass a note to somebody. As long as we are letting people go unaccompanied and unobserved to restrooms it's pretty easy to arrange to pass messages there, cell phone or no cell phone.

Another point is that people don't necessarily object to being phone-less during play. The objection is to giving your expensive phone (that also contains a large quantity of personal data and information you "can't afford to forget") to someone who is not particularly trusted, where it can easily be stolen or damaged. Leaving it in a hotel room carries similar issues, and means that you don't "get it back after the session." Establishing some sort of trusted "cell phone storage" costs money and also creates a potential choke point before and after sessions (i.e. long lines to turn in phone or get phone back).

you would leave a $1000 suit in a hotel room that is more expensive than a phone

if a phone goes off it is still an irritant to other people and the ensuing conversation is probably more irritatting

[inquiry]

sceptic, on Mar 31 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

Quote

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.

that does not hold sway, sorry but most of us are parents and I for one cant carry mobiles at work, (well not strictly true, I can in this job, but many I have not been able to) I bring up my granddaughter and I always leave her with people that I will trust to do the right thing in an emergency (I am not saying you would not do that either, but you cannot be with them 24/7)(and I am not saying that if something happened to her, I would not want to be by her side either) I am just a realist, this is a simple rule and I can not understand why so many think it is some kind of afront to thier civil liberties

I admire your 24/7 commitment, but sheesh Uday you need to have a few hours to yourself to relax and do what you enjoy, turn the phone off occasionally

Of all people... uday needs a cell phone... my god!, what if the BBO crashed and no one could get in touch with uday.... I think ACBL should give him a special exemption from this ban!!!!!!!

But UDAY makes a good point, and one tried to make in my earlier post in this thread, which is....

Quote

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

.

Until the ACBL assure us there is a reasonable solution for "stashing and retrieving" our cell phones, this ban will not work, and even in the limited cases where it does work, it will engender ill-will among the members forced to follow it.

There is a famous story (not sure if it is true) about a european event where a player used a cell phone and the director came over and issued a fine (let;s say 100 euro's), the fellow gave the director 200 euro's because "i plan to make another call".

[sceptic]

Quote

Until the ACBL assure us there is a reasonable solution for "stashing and retrieving" our cell phones, this ban will not work, and even in the limited cases where it does work, it will engender ill-will among the members forced to follow it.

I agree with that, it is a shame no one seems to want to suggest a workable, alternative solution

[jdonn]

sceptic, on Mar 31 2008, 01:31 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

Are you aware that if a cell phone is off it can not ring? Any more than you can post on the forums if your computer is turned off.

would that not indicate they had not turned it off as required?

There is already a penalty for your phone ringing during the session, so I don't exactly see what you are suggesting, other than that they do a better job of enforcing that rule. I think every single person here who doesn't want to give up their cell phone, including me, gladly admits that it should have to be off during the session.

[barmar]

sceptic, the new ban is NOT just while playing. The new rule says that you can't even have the cellphone in the hallways near the playing area. E.g. you can't put the cell phone in your coat pocket and hang the coat on a coat rack outside the doors. Nor can you use the phone when you leave the room during a hospitality break.

This rule goes much further than the current rule that requires you to turn off your cellphone while playing.

[matmat]

inquiry, on Mar 31 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

But UDAY makes a good point, and one tried to make in my earlier post in this thread, which is....

Quote

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

.

Until the ACBL assure us there is a reasonable solution for "stashing and retrieving" our cell phones, this ban will not work, and even in the limited cases where it does work, it will engender ill-will among the members forced to follow it.

There is a famous story (not sure if it is true) about a european event where a player used a cell phone and the director came over and issued a fine (let;s say 100 euro's), the fellow gave the director 200 euro's because "i plan to make another call".

For me, the key word there is safely.
I don't view handing my phone to the director (along with the 100+ other phones s/he is collecting during the session) to be overly safe. And unless there is some sort of well designed system, the lines to recover the phones might very well be longer (timewise) than walking back to whatever room you're staying at.

i can just imagine it...
"is this phone yours?"
"no"
"this one?"
"no"
"well what did it look like?"
"it had buttons"

[finally17]

sceptic, on Mar 31 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Quote

Until the ACBL assure us there is a reasonable solution for "stashing and retrieving" our cell phones, this ban will not work, and even in the limited cases where it does work, it will engender ill-will among the members forced to follow it.

I agree with that, it is a shame no one seems to want to suggest a workable, alternative solution

"no one seems to want?"

Believe me, plenty of us would offer solutions if we had them, but another solution is not evident.