[rbforster]

jdonn, on Apr 24 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

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

I'm sure it will die promptly and happily forgotten as soon as the powers that be come to their senses and scrap this senseless policy.

[CSGibson]

Rob F, on Apr 26 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 24 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

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

I'm sure it will die promptly and happily forgotten as soon as the powers that be come to their senses and scrap this senseless policy.

Yeah, I can just hear them now, talking about it in Memphis:

ACBL1: "We've got this BBO Forum thread that's 19 pages and getting longer!"

ACBL2: "Really? Is it about weak vs strong no trump defense? People can go on and on about that."

ACBL1: "No, it's a thread mostly critical of our new cell phone policy."

ACBL2: "19 pages of criticism and debate? How do we get it to end?"

ACBL1: "RobF says it's only going to end if we change the policy."

ACBL2: "Damn. Guess we better change the policy."

ACBL1: "I'll put the word out now. Thank God we caught the thread before it could reach 25 pages, at which point everyone would quit the ACBL."

[JoAnneM]

19 pages is really long. Have the people posting now gone back and read all the preceding pages? Are you recycling the arguments? How many participants of this forum will this new rule actually affect? If the ACBL, knowing that there was the possibility of some cheating had done nothing, would they have been as responsible? And why does this have to justified to you?

I always say if you are going to complain then be part of the solution. But if you are just discussing then my goodness this has gone on a long time.

[TimG]

JoAnneM, on Apr 26 2008, 08:12 PM, said:

19 pages is really long. Have the people posting now gone back and read all the preceding pages? Are you recycling the arguments? How many participants of this forum will this new rule actually affect? If the ACBL, knowing that there was the possibility of some cheating had done nothing, would they have been as responsible? And why does this have to justified to you?

I always say if you are going to complain then be part of the solution. But if you are just discussing then my goodness this has gone on a long time.

If you go back and read the 19 pages, you will find that from very early in the thread there were suggestions about what ACBL could do to better protect against cheating (i.e. be more responsible) without inconveniencing so many players. Posters have put forth suggestions in an attempt to be part of the solution (and I'm sure the suggestions were made to officials rather than just made in this thread).

The ACBL is a membership organization and as such has responsibility to its members which may include justifying rules that it imposes on the players/members.

[barmar]

matmat, on Apr 26 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

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...

If you outlaw cellphones, only outlaws will have cellphones.

[h2osmom]

‎‎







Sent: Fri 5/02/08 7:43 AM



Security scan upon download
graycol.gif (0.1 KB), pic24423.gif (1.3 KB), ecblank.gif (0.0 KB)
Hi Carol:
Thank you for note regarding the electronic communication device ban.For those that have need to bring their phone near the playing area , there will be service available to check your device during the session.This will operate similar to a coat check area.While I understand this change may be a bit of an inconvenience to a few , I do believe a large majority of the Board of Directors feel this is necessary to protect the integrity of the game , especially our North American Championship events.As with US Chess championships , this policy will be the norm rather than the exception for many organizations.
Kindest regards,

Jay Baum, CEO
ACBL







05/02/2008 03:38 AM





cc



Subject




Hi,

I received the May 2008 issue of the bulletin, and read the column regarding electronics ban. I attend 2-3 nationals per year, and for me it's social as well as bridge. It's an opportunity to meet with friends I don't see often. I don't stay at the host hotel, and I use my cell phone between sessions to contact friends. It will be a hardship to me, and to many others, not to have cell phones available between sessions. I do not support this rule, nor do any of my friends who are also members. I have discussed it with at least 20 ACBL members. I have also expressed my displeasure to Rand Pinsky, my district director. I think it's a hardship for many members, and does little or nothing to prevent cheating.

I am also concerned about enforcement of this rule. Many people carry large bags onto play sites. Food items, sweaters, approved defenses, system notes, in addition to all that is already in a purse. There are a lot of ways to hide a cell phone. Do you intend to search bags?

I am pretty sure you know that Bridgebase Forums conducted a survey asking ACBL members if they intend to follow the ban. If I recall, over 60% of repliers said they did not support it, and would carry a concealed cell phone onto play sites. Having a rule that members don't follow will weaken the authority of ACBL. If one rule doesn't have to be followed, do any? and if so, which ones?

I have been a member for several years, and I wasn't consulted in any way about this policy change, nor were any of my friends. I think the rule should be suspended for Las Vegas, and membership polled, perhaps at registration. That way you can find out if members believe the hardship is warranted for the benefits of banning cellphones. Thank you for your consideration.

Carol Frank
Burbank, CA
N969360




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[h2osmom]

I sent a letter to acbl CEO re electronics ban, and received the reply I posted. sorry I didn't know how to copy only pertinent parts of the e mail.

[jtfanclub]

h2osmom, on May 2 2008, 10:24 AM, said:

I sent a letter to acbl CEO re electronics ban, and received the reply I posted. sorry I didn't know how to copy only pertinent parts of the e mail.

Which is fine, now you can go back to the post, click on the 'edit' button, and delete the parts you don't like. If you want.

[jdonn]

If they have a GOOD system for checking the phones at the door and picking them up on the way out I would stop objecting. Good meaning fast, and that they won't lose my phone or give it to someone else. Frankly I don't believe the ACBL can or will do it, but I cross my fingers to be proven wrong.

[awm]

Quote

I do believe a large majority of the Board of Directors feel this is necessary

Note that Jay Baum never addresses Carol's points that many of her friends are upset about this rule, or that a majority in a poll said that they would not follow this rule. There is no indication that the views of the membership were considered or are even viewed as important.

And lest anyone think that the Board of Directors is somehow representative of the membership, none of us have been afforded the opportunity to vote for our board representative either (a point also alluded to in Carol's original mail, and never addressed by Jay Baum).

[TimG]

awm, on May 2 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

And lest anyone think that the Board of Directors is somehow representative of the membership, none of us have been afforded the opportunity to vote for our board representative either (a point also alluded to in Carol's original mail, and never addressed by Jay Baum).

I've voted in a Board of Director election, at least once, maybe twice.

Also, don't imagine that a few dozen votes on a BBO forum is representative of the membership.

[han]

I don't think that the ACBL should be a direct democracy with referenda for everything the board wants to do. Let's not blow this out of proportions.

[mike777]

1) we sue acbl... we sue us
2) acbl says you need to ....x...y zzz before you sue.....we sue you
3) we counter sue...xyz suit and basic suit...
4) keep in mind all of this is about your partner holding up sign at awards....
5) we die we are old.
6) you sue over cell phone pda..etc
7) we do not set up collection plate for collecting cell phones
8) another suit'
9) we counter suit
10) bunch of old folks die
11) those young folks are soon old folks..etc...repeat

[JoAnneM]

I would hate to think that every ACBL member would have to be consulted before rules were changed. I think this new rule is extreme but evidently the players themselves (some players evidently) have caused it. Abuses of privileges have always been the cause of them being lost, so whose fault is that? For those of us who play online cheating is a very frustrating thing that we have to live with, so just imagine what it is like for players in a national championship to feel that it may be tainted.

It is easy to sit back and criticize when we are not the ones having to make these decisions.

[jdonn]

JoAnneM, on May 4 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

It is easy to sit back and criticize when we are not the ones having to make these decisions.

Are you saying bad decisions should be exempt from criticism?

[barmar]

jdonn, on May 4 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 4 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

It is easy to sit back and criticize when we are not the ones having to make these decisions.

Are you saying bad decisions should be exempt from criticism?

I doubt that's what she meant. But we're not in possession of all the facts.

It seems unlikely that the BoD chose to do this capriciously -- the BoD is comprised of bridge players, who will themselves be subject to the rule. There must have been concerns voiced that prompted it. All we react to is the inconvenience, and the fascist attitude we feel from ACBL management.

There's been lots of whining, but few constructive alternatives suggested.

[jdonn]

barmar, on May 4 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 4 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 4 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

It is easy to sit back and criticize when we are not the ones having to make these decisions.

Are you saying bad decisions should be exempt from criticism?

I doubt that's what she meant. But we're not in possession of all the facts.

Is that another way of saying "she didn't really mean that but it's true"? Perhaps the fact that the membership is uninformed through the whole process is part of the problem. And no I'm not suggesting polling every member.

Quote

It seems unlikely that the BoD chose to do this capriciously -- the BoD is comprised of bridge players, who will themselves be subject to the rule.  There must have been concerns voiced that prompted it.  All we react to is the inconvenience, and the fascist attitude we feel from ACBL management.

Why shouldn't we react negatively to a fascist attitude? I think the negative reaction is mostly directed at the feeling that the views of an entire class of people are not considered at all in the decision making process. Be it true or not.

I mean look at the above letter. Carol clearly not only expressed her own feelings, but both through talking to others and the forums made it clear that many people are very against this rule and even intend to ignore it. And Jay Baum could do nothing except say it "may be a bit of an inconvenience to a few". People who depend on cell phones should read that and think their views have even been heard, much less considered?

Quote

There's been lots of whining, but few constructive alternatives suggested.

Have you even read the thread? Not all suggestions are good or plausible, but many have been made.
Enforce the law that there is a penalty if cell phones ring.
Use screens more often in important events.
Do nothing.
Enact a viable system to check cell phones at the door.
Probably some more I'm forgetting or missing.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on May 4 2008, 09:38 PM, said:

It seems unlikely that the BoD chose to do this capriciously -- the BoD is comprised of bridge players, who will themselves be subject to the rule.  There must have been concerns voiced that prompted it.  All we react to is the inconvenience, and the fascist attitude we feel from ACBL management.

There's been lots of whining, but few constructive alternatives suggested.

I think that there have been a number of constructive alternatives offered...

Most of them incorporate some element of the following: "Don't do anything"

Why in god's name would you ever want to introduce a cosmetic change that will do nothing to address the core problem but will significant inconvenience the membership?

I'm all for improving the security of major events. I'd even be happy to volunteer time and effort on such a project. What the ACBL is doing is a joke. Its going to waste time and money and piss people off. Doing absolutely nothing would be a substantial improvement.

[h2osmom]

Another constructive suggestion offered is more predealt boards wtih simultaneous hand play.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on May 4 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

barmar, on May 4 2008, 09:38 PM, said:

It seems unlikely that the BoD chose to do this capriciously -- the BoD is comprised of bridge players, who will themselves be subject to the rule.  There must have been concerns voiced that prompted it.  All we react to is the inconvenience, and the fascist attitude we feel from ACBL management.

There's been lots of whining, but few constructive alternatives suggested.

I think that there have been a number of constructive alternatives offered...

Most of them incorporate some element of the following: "Don't do anything"

Why in god's name would you ever want to introduce a cosmetic change that will do nothing to address the core problem but will significant inconvenience the membership?

Doing nothing doesn't address the problem. Even a token effort demonstrates that ACBL management is concerned and is trying. "Don't do anything" suggests that they're just putting their head in the sand and ignoring the concerns.

What do you think the "core problem" is? The core problem could be that there's a perception, probably unfounded, that electronic devices are being, or could be, used to cheat.