[Vilgan]

Rob F, on Apr 17 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 17 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

To me "public criminal police record" implies that a crime was in fact committed, and the record shows who committed it. Yet in this country we have the interesting (theoretical at least) concept of "innocent until proven guilty". So if you call the police and say "Mike has committted a crime, please come and arrest him", there will be a record of that call. It may or may not be "public" (I'll ask a police dispatcher friend of mine). However, it is not a "criminal record" in the sense above.

For some reason being arrested but released still isn't equivalent to never happening. Employers might ask if you've been "arrested" for various offenses (not "convicted"). The police can use this as an excuse to take your fingerprints or DNA so you'll be easy to pin other stuff on later when they pull you up as a false positive in some database search, etc (No, I'm not making the DNA thing up). Not a good situation all around.

Huh? Reality check please?

Even after the ACBL ban on cell phones, having a cell phone in the area is NOT a crime. The cops aren't going to do squat. Chewing bubble gum might be forbidden in some schools, but if you do so it does not create a permanent criminal record.

Only scenario here that involves any sort of arrest/criminal whatever is ACBL person asks you to empty your pockets. You say no. They say I'm afraid you need to or xyz bad thing will happen (probably a large penalty in the game, and a record inside the ACBL about the incident.. if they even have a clue wtf to do). You refuse. They say then I'm afraid you have to leave. You refuse. They call the cops. Cops say you have to leave. You refuse.

Now there is an actual sort of criminal/cop issue of some sort. All this silliness about omg criminal records, etc is just that: silliness.

[mycroft]

matmat, on Apr 16 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

mycroft, on Apr 16 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

"As a condition of entering this event, you agree to abide by the regulations in place.  You also agree that the ACBL may take reasonable steps, including a search of your clothes and possessions, to ensure that you are following the regulations."

Works the same as the searches you sign up for going into a rock concert, Disneyland, or most Rocky Horror presentations.  It's a condition of entry.  Don't like it?  Don't go.

the other searches you list are for personal and public safety.

Um, no. At least not in movies, or Rock concerts, where they want to avoid you recording with that camera/video/cell phone. Granted, a lot of them don't care, but the movie people certainly do.

Whether or not I think it's a good thing - and frankly, I think that it's over the top, myself, but I don't know much about the impugned integrity of the big events - they can do it. And they can stop you if you want to violate it. And there's nothing a lawyer is going to be able to do about it, provided they phrase it properly. Which was the totality of my previous comment.

P.S. My personal opinion (despite carrying two of them at the moment) is that cell phones are a tool of the devil and should be not just banned, but destroyed and their factories and towers sowed with salt. "'Delenda est Carthago', said the great Cato", indeed. But that is totally irrelevant to the point at hand, as well.

[Mbodell]

matmat, on Apr 16 2008, 12:21 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 16 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

And those who forget to turn their &^&^ phone off during the game.
I wish they'd frisk the players at the 299ers too 

having the phone ring is another matter entirely. mind you, i just talked with someone who played a local sectional event recently (one of the last few days) and said that a player's phone went off and the director, as usual, did nothing.

what's the point of making rules if they're either unenforcible or not going to be enforced?

A couple of weeks ago towards the end of a sectional swiss my partners phone went off while we were at the table. It was reasonably loud and we got a lot of dirty looks from other players. There was a TD doing some clean up of unused bidding boxes 3 feet behind my partner. Neither he nor anyone else said anything.

Last night at the club a players cell phone went off and was very, very loud. Everyone in the room could hear it and was disturbed by it except the player whose phone it was. He didn't notice. The TD went to him and tapped him on the shoulder and got him to turn it off. But there was no penalty given.

On Monday at the club unit game a player's phone went off while it was in her jacket in the playing area (she was E/W and had left it near her first table). She was way across the room and had to go turn it off. There was no penalty given.

So, yes, I'd say cell phones going off and nothing being done about it is an issue. And it creates problems too because if either of the club directors did give penalties for the phone going off I'm sure the people involved would feel like it was selective prosecution since people pretty rarely get penalties for it.

I'd be a lot happier if we just more rigorously enforced the cell phone penalties for when they ring. Although in full disclosure I'm an odd ball that doesn't own a cell phone.

[Elianna]

mycroft, on Apr 17 2008, 12:51 PM, said:

Um, no.  At least not in movies, or Rock concerts, where they want to avoid you recording with that camera/video/cell phone.  Granted, a lot of them don't care, but the movie people certainly do.

I have yet to be stopped from taking my cell phone into a movie (even sneak previews). In fact, I haven't had my bag searched for video camera, etc.

I'm sure that if I took one out and tried USING it to record, I might get in trouble, but that's a rule addressed at actual wrong-doers. And it's enforced. So the movie theater doesn't have to make ridiculous rules, because THEY ALREADY ENFORCE THE ONES ON THE BOOKS.

[barmar]

matmat, on Apr 16 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

Having an organization blatantly tell you that they do not trust you not to cheat sure is a nice way of treating the membership.

If some members are concerned about cheating, then obbviously someone already doesn't trust someone, and they want the organization to do something about it. Prevention is considered by many to be preferable to after-the-fact punishment; it's certainly easier.

The people making the rules don't even know me, why should I expect them to make a decision about whether to trust me? All they know about me is that I pay my membership and entry fees. So did Steve Sion, I'll bet.

[matmat]

barmar, on Apr 18 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

If some members are concerned about cheating, then obbviously someone already doesn't trust someone, and they want the organization to do something about it. Prevention is considered by many to be preferable to after-the-fact punishment; it's certainly easier.

The people making the rules don't even know me, why should I expect them to make a decision about whether to trust me? All they know about me is that I pay my membership and entry fees. So did Steve Sion, I'll bet.

i agree. it is certainly easier. it also inconveniences a lot more people and casts an air of suspicion on everyone. OTOH I prefer a method where cheaters are eliminated from the pool of players, rather than simply tagged and cast back in. There will always be ways to cheat and trying to eliminate them is ridiculous.

Someone made the airport security analogy earlier. we now have to give up a lot of privacy and also suffer inconveniences based on someone's beliefs of how bombs can find their way on planes. otoh, every few weeks you hear that some agent managed to sneak bomb parts and what-not. I can think of several ways that one could smuggle a deadly instrument onto a plane without anyone noticing. i'd never do it of course. similarly, i can think of several ways i could cheat at a bridge game, i'd never want to do that either.

[barmar]

I'm not going to bring up the airport security analogy, because many people feel that the rules are different when lives are at stake.

So how about anti-shoplifting measures in stores? Do you think the anti-theft tags and sensors at the doors imply that the store doesn't trust you? Do you avoid those stores because of it?

And before you say that they're not really an inconvenience, how about the hard plastic packaging that has become so common? It's an anti-theft measure: it makes it impossible for shoplifters to open the package in the store and take the contents, but many people find them nearly impossible to open at home, too (I've occasionally drawn blood in the process).

In an ideal world (well, ignoring the one without cheaters to begin with), we would be able to catch cheaters and punish them. But history has shown that this is really hard. In some of the most notorious cheating scandals in bridge, there isn't even a concensus that the cheating occurred, or that the process of proving it was correct.

Since we know from experience that we can't reliably catch cheaters, the next best thing is to try to prevent it.

[matmat]

barmar, on Apr 21 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

So how about anti-shoplifting measures in stores? Do you think the anti-theft tags and sensors at the doors imply that the store doesn't trust you? Do you avoid those stores because of it?

Agree that this is a much better analogy. But to me banning electronic devices is more akin to having all the shoppers strip down to their underwear so they don't have anywhere to put stolen merchandise. Oh, and they have to leave their clothes in their car, because the store doesn't provide lockers.

[rbforster]

barmar, on Apr 21 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

In an ideal world, we would be able to catch cheaters and punish them.  But history has shown that this is really hard.  In some of the most notorious cheating scandals in bridge, there isn't even a concensus that the cheating occurred, or that the process of proving it was correct.

It seems to me that if the ACBL was serious about cheating, they would try to address the issue of what constitutes reliable proof of this rather than making up extra rules to hassle people. Nevermind that they're hassling everyone in an attempt to mildly inconvenience the (potential) cheaters out there.

If they can't prove that cheating happened in these high profile cases, how can you justify to your membership all these intrusive restrictions and inconveniences for something that may not have even happened?

Can someone please point me to the number of cases of proven cheating in the past year (2007) in the NABC+ events? If we're talking more than 1 case, I'd be surprised - but I'd like to see the evidence to be proven wrong. A policy aimed at stopping a mere case or two could vastly more easily accomplish its goal by banning the relevant people from competition for a few years than a blanket effort to annoy and alienate its membership.

Show me the cheating numbers and maybe then I'll believe there's a problem. Until I see there's a problem, you'll never convince me this rule is needed or justifiable.

[rbforster]

matmat, on Apr 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

to me banning electronic devices is more akin to having all the shoppers strip down to their underwear so they don't have anywhere to put stolen merchandise. Oh, and they have to leave their clothes in their car, because the store doesn't provide lockers.

A better example along this theme would be that you can't carry backpacks or purses (even small ones) since you might put shoplifted items in them. No, we don't have lockers and we don't provide parking lot security for your purses left in the car. However, you can still have clothes with really big pockets and no one will check those for stolen items. What's the point? The store is basically saying "don't steal by putting things in bags, only steal by putting them in pockets". ACBL's policy is very much like this - inconvenient and largely (if not completely) ineffective at stopping the targeted behavior.

[hrothgar]

Rob F, on Apr 21 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

barmar, on Apr 21 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

In an ideal world, we would be able to catch cheaters and punish them.  But history has shown that this is really hard.  In some of the most notorious cheating scandals in bridge, there isn't even a concensus that the cheating occurred, or that the process of proving it was correct.

It seems to me that if the ACBL was serious about cheating, they would try to address the issue of what constitutes reliable proof of this rather than making up extra rules to hassle people. Nevermind that they're hassling everyone in an attempt to mildly inconvenience the (potential) cheaters out there.

If they can't prove that cheating happened in these high profile cases, how can you justify to your membership all these intrusive restrictions and inconveniences for something that may not have even happened?

Can someone please point me to the number of cases of proven cheating in the past year (2007) in the NABC+ events? If we're talking more than 1 case, I'd be surprised - but I'd like to see the evidence to be proven wrong. A policy aimed at stopping a mere case or two could vastly more easily accomplish its goal by banning the relevant people from competition for a few years than a blanket effort to annoy and alienate its membership.

Show me the cheating numbers and maybe then I'll believe there's a problem. Until I see there's a problem, you'll never convince me this rule is needed or justifiable.

For what its worth, the following came across BLML this morning

Chess Grandmaster Ian Rogers, Canberra Times column April 20 2008:

"Paranoia about cheating in chess has become endemic, even if actual
cheating in chess is relatively rare. Yet this week two cases showed that vigilance is certainly necessary."

[snip]

"To their credit, the arbiters in Dubai noted that Sadatnajafi was
acting unusually while his opponent was thinking and determined to
keep an eye on him in future rounds."

[snip]

"Apparently, with Sadatnajafi's games being broadcast live on the
internet, a friend in Iran had been able to feed Sadatnajafi's
game into a computer and provide suggestions by SMS in real time."

[snip]

"Had Sadatnajafi been a little more discreet he might never have
been suspected and caught, so it is hard to escape the conclusion
that a time delay on game transmission to the internet is an idea
whose time has come."

[jdonn]

matmat, on Apr 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

barmar, on Apr 21 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

So how about anti-shoplifting measures in stores?  Do you think the anti-theft tags and sensors at the doors imply that the store doesn't trust you?  Do you avoid those stores because of it?

Agree that this is a much better analogy. But to me banning electronic devices is more akin to having all the shoppers strip down to their underwear so they don't have anywhere to put stolen merchandise. Oh, and they have to leave their clothes in their car, because the store doesn't provide lockers.

I see at least three important differences.

Bridge is a leisure activity. Shopping is a necessity.
We pay money to be a member of the ACBL (and thus for the right to be presumed cheaters). You do not have to pay money to actually enter the store.
At bridge tournaments you are on vacation, when having a cell phone is most needed. You go shopping at home where if you didn't want to go to a store you would have 10 other easy choices.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Apr 21 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

matmat, on Apr 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

barmar, on Apr 21 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

So how about anti-shoplifting measures in stores?  Do you think the anti-theft tags and sensors at the doors imply that the store doesn't trust you?  Do you avoid those stores because of it?

Agree that this is a much better analogy. But to me banning electronic devices is more akin to having all the shoppers strip down to their underwear so they don't have anywhere to put stolen merchandise. Oh, and they have to leave their clothes in their car, because the store doesn't provide lockers.

I see at least three important differences.

Bridge is a leisure activity. Shopping is a necessity.
We pay money to be a member of the ACBL (and thus for the right to be presumed cheaters). You do not have to pay money to actually enter the store.
At bridge tournaments you are on vacation, when having a cell phone is most needed. You go shopping at home where if you didn't want to go to a store you would have 10 other easy choices.

All true, but I don't think any of those points are really relevant to my comment. I was responding to "Is this really the attitude that an organization which strives to increase its membership should have?". My point was that even though an organization or business wants to increase members or customers, other considerations may require them to inconvenience members or customers. This is just as true for leisure activities as it is for commercial businesses.

The trick is striking the right balance.

[neilkaz]

TimG, on Mar 9 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

Rob F, on Mar 9 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

You mean they actually think that no one will carry their cell phones when they're at a big bridge tournament?  I don't know who thought up this stuff, but there's no way anyone's going to follow it...

I don't carry my cellphone at a big (or small) tournament. I'm not sure why anyone would need to.

Where do you leave it ? Walk back to your hotel room at a big hotel and event and spend 10 to 15 minutes round trip or walk to your car and spend almost the same time at a big venue !?

Why not do like we all do at backgammon tournies and that is to silence your phone when playing or even shut it off so that you and your opps and PD are distracted, but so you can easily attend to family or personal business once the session has finished ?

.. neilkaz ..

[TimG]

neilkaz, on Apr 24 2008, 02:37 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 9 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

Rob F, on Mar 9 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

You mean they actually think that no one will carry their cell phones when they're at a big bridge tournament?  I don't know who thought up this stuff, but there's no way anyone's going to follow it...

I don't carry my cellphone at a big (or small) tournament. I'm not sure why anyone would need to.

Where do you leave it ? Walk back to your hotel room at a big hotel and event and spend 10 to 15 minutes round trip or walk to your car and spend almost the same time at a big venue !?

Yes, I leave it in the car or hotel room. If I don't get to it between sessions, that's fine with me. I'm sure I under utilize my cell phone, at least by many people's standards.

[barmar]

neilkaz, on Apr 24 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Why not do like we all do at backgammon tournies and that is to silence your phone when playing or even shut it off so that you and your opps and PD are distracted, but so you can easily attend to family or personal business once the session has finished ?

We're already expected to do that, yet phones continue to go off.

Remember, the more stringent rule we're discussing is not for regular events, it's for national events like Spingold, Reisinger, LM Pairs.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Apr 24 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

neilkaz, on Apr 24 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Why not do like we all do at backgammon tournies and that is to silence your phone when playing or even shut it off so that you and your opps and PD are distracted, but so you can easily attend to family or personal business once the session has finished ?

We're already expected to do that, yet phones continue to go off.

Good point, they should make a rule for when that happens to punish guilty people so everyone doesn't suffer.

It's the thread that just won't die...

[blackshoe]

Rule 1. Your phone shall not disturb other players in the playing area. The penalty for a first offense is a DP of 25% of a top at MPs, or -4 imps at IMPs.
Rule 2. Notwithstanding the reluctance of anybody to enforce rule 1, it will be enforced.
Rule 3. If rule 2 is not enforced, see rule 4.


Next!!

[barmar]

jdonn, on Apr 24 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

barmar, on Apr 24 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

neilkaz, on Apr 24 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Why not do like we all do at backgammon tournies and that is to silence your phone when playing or even shut it off so that you and your opps and PD are distracted, but so you can easily attend to family or personal business once the session has finished ?

We're already expected to do that, yet phones continue to go off.

Good point, they should make a rule for when that happens to punish guilty people so everyone doesn't suffer.

It's the thread that just won't die...

Remember, this new rule is not to prevent disturbing other players, it's to prevent cheating (more specifically, a specific type of cheating -- no single measure can prevent all cheating) in high-level events. I'm virtually certain that players who intend to use their cellphones to cheat would remember to silence them.

[matmat]

barmar, on Apr 25 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

Remember, this new rule is not to prevent disturbing other players, it's to prevent cheating (more specifically, a specific type of cheating -- no single measure can prevent all cheating) in high-level events. I'm virtually certain that players who intend to use their cellphones to cheat would remember to silence them.

they will also remember to stash them in some hard to see pocket and it will be the all-too-honest people who will, in a sheep-like manner, leave their cell phones at their hotels and cars. fat lot of good this ban does...