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