[benlessard]

Like it or not cellphones have become an important part of our lives. For some of them its needed for business, security etc. I think the amount of people that need will need their cellphones for important reasons is much higher then the amount of people that will cheat using a cell.

I think that most personnal reasons for answering a phone call in the middle of a tournament are probably more important then being cheated or not in a bridge event.

One thing im sure is that the directors here wont give a damn if you carry your cell and long as they dont ear it.

PS i dont own a cell and dont want to.

[the hog]

"How would you have gone to the grocery store 100 years ago?"

Same way I do now - walk!

[hrothgar]

sceptic, on Apr 1 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

I have spent 6 months aged 17 walking around europe with no cell phone and I had some extremely stressful situations to contend with, I wonder now, how I managed with no cell phone, life is tough these days

I just can not imagine, how not having a cell phone would turn me in to a big cissy that could not cope with life

Just because you're too stupid to understand something doesn't mean that its not true...
This is especially true in your case.

No one here is saying that having a cell phone is a life and death imperative. However, I think that its clear that many people find cell phones to be an important convenience. At the margin, this might even mean the difference between someone attending an event and someone skipping one.

I'll note once again: I don't own a cell phone. I find them more trouble than they are worth. However, I recognize that many folks feel quite differently.

[hrothgar]

sceptic, on Apr 1 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

why not get on board the management structure of the organisation you seem to have so much contempt for and change things, instead of bad mouthing almost everything they try and do, I am sure they would listen to you, but I doubt you would extend the same courtesy to them.

For the record:

1. I brought the potential to use shoe phones and the like as a mechanism for cheating to the attention of the ACBL years back. If you want, I can even point you to some discussions on this forums a couple years back where Jan Martel and I were discussing this topic.

2. When this latest round of idiocy started up I was the first one to suggest that the ACBL start focusing on practical solutions like introducing dealing machines

3. I already started conducting some surveys on other bridge mailing listed trying to evaluate whether or not their would be any support for a "Cell Phone Check" at Boston Nationals. My comments in this area led TimG to contact Roy Green (District 25 President and ex CEO of the ACBL about implementing such a system. I'm following up with a recommendation that District 25 consider conducting survey's in Vegas

4. I had a letter to the editor on this topic accepted by the Bridge World yesterday...

As for your suggestion that I try to get onto the management structure of the ACBL: Ain't going to happen, for any number of reasons.

I readily admit, I bad mouth a lot of the stuff that comes out of the ACBL. Then again, from my perspective, the ACBL is responsible for a hell of a lot of crap.

I've held some reasonably senior positions at a number of companies. If anyone in my management chain was responsible for the never ending cascade of ***** that oozes out of Memphis they'd be out on their ass so fast it would make their head spin.

[Codo]

finally17, on Apr 1 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

I feel the need to add that I'm sickened by all the comments about whiny babies and children. If the younger people in this crowd were to start complaining about all the elderly that played bridge, both the playing against them and the logistics of having them in the event, you all would bitch-slap us with accusations of ageism so fast our heads would spin.

But we make perfectly valid points about why we want to be able to carry cell phones and rather than bothering to recognize their validity you start using these derogatory terms.

Between all these whinning kids, this had been the nicest gem.

We made valid points and they start to discuss degoratory terms.

If you are able to read, be so kind and read what had been written in this thread.

The pro mobile group used words like idiots, talked about any absurd reason why they truely need a mobile in the playing area.
And they made some valid points.

The anti mobile fraction did exactly the same.

But to claim that we did so good and they did not is simply narrowminded.

Please read what f.e. TimG wrote about mobiles. You may not share his views, but they are far away from discussing degoratory terms and making non valid points.

Read waht Trinidad or JanM wrote about real life expierence with a mobile phone ban. But no this is not valid in your eyes.

The only thing which is valid in your eyes are your fears.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Apr 1 2008, 07:22 AM, said:

If anyone in my management chain was responsible for the never ending cascade of ***** that oozes out of Memphis they'd be out on their ass so fast it would make their head spin.

It would be a good idea to remember that ACBL's Memphis management is a rather different body than the ACBL BoD.

[h2osmom]

There is another problem about the mobile phone ban that has not been addressed, and I think it's serious. According to the poll here on BBO, and conversations I have had with other bridge acquaintances, many people fully intend to ignore the ban and carry a cell phone regardless of the rule. Once people don't accept a rule, and routinely ignore it, respect for the authority making the rule decreases. ACBL exists for the members, the majority of whom will not be playing day 3 of the Vanderbilt. Without the goodwill of the rank and file members, there could exist no Vanderbilt or Spingold. ACBL needs to poll members before making a change that will inconvenience a large percentage of its members and verify that there is support for such a change prior to implementation. This rule certainly does not seem to have support of the people who are the members of ACBL.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Apr 1 2008, 07:23 AM, said:

finally17, on Apr 1 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

I feel the need to add that I'm sickened by all the comments about whiny babies and children.  If the younger people in this crowd were to start complaining about all the elderly that played bridge, both the playing against them and the logistics of having them in the event, you all would bitch-slap us with accusations of ageism so fast our heads would spin.

But we make perfectly valid points about why we want to be able to carry cell phones and rather than bothering to recognize their validity you start using these derogatory terms.

Between all these whinning kids, this had been the nicest gem.

And already no one is going to care about the rest of your post, as you just prove your opponents right before you even start....

[awm]

I agree with Finally17 that there is a lot of ageism in this thread.

There are basically two issues that need to be addressed:

(1) Will banning cell phones reduce cheating? How substantially so?

(2) Will banning cell phones inconvenience players? How substantially so?

I think that on the first issue, a number of good points have been made on both sides. People have indicated how easy it is to cheat with a phone, how important it is to make it harder to cheat or at least make it appear that it's hard to cheat, and how seriously ACBL takes its NABC+ events. The counterpoint has been made that there are many other ways to cheat which a cell phone ban will not address, that approaches like simultaneous play of boards or having monitors to watch for cheating will be much more effective to reduce cheating than a cell phone ban, that none of the high profile cheating scandals in recent years (of which there have been many) have involved phones, and that restricting a relatively complicated and difficult way to cheat while leaving the door wide open to other easier methods of cheating will not improve security one iota.

On the second issue, I think a lot of ageism has materialized. The (mostly young) people who want their cell phones have given long lists of reasons that the phone is useful and enhances their enjoyment of nationals. They have indicated that in some cases they could not or would not even attend nationals because of this ban or that they would ignore the ban and take their chances with penalties because the phone is so essential. They have also argued that the logistics of a cell phone ban (where does the phone go, who collects it, how does one get it back, what if it is lost/stolen) will be hard to implement. The counterpoint from the (mostly older) people who don't agree with the importance of carrying a mobile phone has mostly been to call the people with phones whiny babies and to suggest that "we didn't need phones back in the day so you don't need them now." Well, back in the day we didn't need air conditioning or hearing aids or heart defibrillators but I don't hear anyone suggesting that we ban those in the playing site of bridge tournaments. The fact is that some items of modern technology are very handy and improve people's ability to travel, organize themselves, and enjoy their trip. "Back in the day" young people had an awful lot of trouble playing serious bridge and holding down a non-bridge job at the same time (read any of the bridge pros' biographies to see this is true). "Back in the day" people with young kids didn't really play a lot of bridge. Cell phones help make those things possible, since you can check in at work occasionally or make sure your kids are okay. "Back in the day" these young folks would've just stayed home and not bothered with nationals... maybe that is what the older population wants?

[awm]

As another point... what is the most significant anti-cheating improvement at bridge tournaments in the last fifty years?

My guess: screens.

If the integrity of the event is not important enough to put screens at the table then what business do we have banning cell phones?

There are no screens in the LM pairs (even day three) or the Blue Ribbon pairs. These are ACBL's premier pairs events, definitely "NABC+" rated.

[awm]

Anyways here's my take on the ban. I'll be happy to follow the cell phone ban in any event where ACBL makes sure that:

(1) There are screens at every table.
(2) The boards are played in the same order, basically simultaneously, at every table.
(3) No one (player or kibitzer) is allowed to leave the table during the play of a hand.

I think that these three things are very simple, standard approaches to preventing cheating. They address problems which have arisen numerous times. If ACBL refuses to implement these things, I have to believe that they are not seriously trying to stop cheating from occurring, and that the cell phone ban is primarily an attempt to inconvenience younger players and not a legitimate attempt to combat unethical players. I will continue to ignore the cell phone ban until it becomes part of a serious anti-cheating effort.

I'll note that presently, the above conditions do not apply to any ACBL event. Only the late rounds of the Spingold/Vanderbilt enforce even the first two, and many "nationally rated" events such as the last day of the three-day life master pairs do not enforce any of the three.

[benlessard]

Quote

If the integrity of the event is not important enough to put screens at the table then what business do we have banning cell phones?

Great argument.

[TimG]

awm, on Apr 1 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

(3) No one (player or kibitzer) is allowed to leave the table during the play of a hand.

Kibitzers ought to be allowed to enter the playing area only between rounds/segments; once a round/segment starts, the playing area ought to be closed. A kibitzer could leave the room at any time, but would not be able to re-enter until the next between-round/segment break. Players should remain in the playing room until they have completed the current round/segment. In this way, players could not communicate to their teammates regarding hand they are about to play. (Yes, I realize signals could be transmitted via vibrating cellphones or custom hi-tech devices, but the number of boards for which useful information could be passed would be significantly reduced. And, the effort needed to cheat in this manner would be significantly increased over current conditions.)

I have long thought that there ought to be a directing presence in each playing area. Directors should not be stationed in hallways or sitting behind tables at the edge of a playing area. There ought to be a director for each 2-3 sections that is actually walking the floor, observing the players, making sure things run smoothly, etc. Not only would this obviate the very annoying need to leave the playing area to call a director, but directors would have a much better feel for the happenings in the sections they are patrolling. It would be easier for them to monitor slow play situations, make quick rulings (including automatic penalties when a cell phone rings), keep the game moving in an orderly fashion and recognize less savory behavior.

Quote

If ACBL refuses to implement these things, I have to believe that they are not seriously trying to stop cheating from occurring, and that the cell phone ban is primarily an attempt to inconvenience younger players and not a legitimate attempt to combat unethical players.

Think what you want, but I seriously doubt any board member ever thought along the lines of: "hey, this rule will seriously inconvenience the young folks, we ought to pass it just to annoy them."

[awm]

The current cell phone policy just strikes me as similar to a rule that you are not allowed to carry hair spray on an airplane, because it might be used to create a flame thrower.

Such a rule makes some degree of sense, and you might think it would prevent some people from hijacking a plane. All very nice, but suppose that it is perfectly allowed to carry a submachine gun or dynamite on a plane. Now the hair spray rule looks pretty darned silly, and will probably inconvenience a lot of legitimate travelers while doing absolutely nothing to the hijackers (who will forgo hair spray and just bring their submachine gun).

It is quite similar in bridge -- as long as there are no screens at the table it's very easy to signal partner by facial expression or where you place your quitted tricks on the table or which hand you remove the cards from the bidding box or how you hold your cards during the auction. In fact people have done all these things and been caught doing all these things in high profile cheating scandals. While on the surface a cell phone ban seems like it might make some degree of sense and potentially stop some people from cheating at bridge, as long as nothing is done to prevent the finger signals and the foot signals and the way you hold your hand signals (the bridge cheating equivalent of dynamite and a submachine gun) all the cell phone ban will do is annoy a lot of legitimate players.

[pclayton]

When I said you had to plan things, I meant non-emergencies. Obviously cell phones can be a lifesaver in a dire situation. If the Las Vegas convention center is hit by a meteor, curse me while you are buried in the rubble.

Cell phones are a modern convenience, but they are still a convenience. Dont compare them to cars. While you are at it, dont compare them to air conditioning, electricity or running water, either, since they are just as unrelated.

If you want to meet someone for dinner, call them before you leave your hotel. Nationals arent that big. You can usually find someone if you need to.

Checking voice and emails is nice, but do it before the session. If you are staying in the host hotel, leave your phone in your room. If you are staying at another hotel, its a hassle, but theres probably a teammate or someone you know who has a room at the LVCC.

If you are so friggin important you need to check your em /vm every couple of hours, you shouldnt be in sin city that week anyway.

m still pretty torn about it. I may play in the Spingold and I may not. Definitely some NABC event though. As Justin says, why would you risk a substantial penalty for a convenience? It just isnt worth it.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Apr 1 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Think what you want, but I seriously doubt any board member ever thought along the lines of: "hey, this rule will seriously inconvenience the young folks, we ought to pass it just to annoy them."

No, to merge this with another reply, "If we bother everybody about hairspray, maybe they'll think that we have submachine guns under control".

For example, the plastic baggie thing at the airport has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. This is going to somehow prevent people from putting plastique into a toothpaste tube or something highly toxic and/or flammable into a shaving cream container? Oh, wait, they'll only have four ounces of C4 on them. Makes me feel MUCH better.

But I'm sure that a lot of people, while grumbling about this crud, are secretly reassured that the airlines are doing something about terrorism. Meanwhile, it's a whole lot cheaper for the airlines to do this than to put a well trained german shepherd at each checkpoint, even if it doesn't do anything.

[keylime]

I'm not going to adhere to it, because it isn't going to happen. My loved ones would riot if they found out about it.

[jdonn]

WTH adam lol. Your first post of the three in a row was really good, your second was understandable, and your third went off the deep end lol. There are a lot of reasons I won't give up my phone but conspiracy theory is not among them.

[finally17]

pclayton, on Apr 1 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Cell phones are a modern convenience, but they are still a convenience. Dont compare them to cars. While you are at it, dont compare them to air conditioning, electricity or running water, either, since they are just as unrelated.

The comparison to cars, while not perfect, is very relevant. Before the existence of cars, the world was set up to never have to travel miles across town in minutes, or hundreds of miles in a single day. Now that cars are widespread, failure to be able to meet these types of expectations will disqualify you for a job, mean that you never get to see children and grandchildren who are that much more likely to live far away, and just generally make life much more difficult for you than for everyone else around you (excepting certain select highly urban areas).

More and more today we live in a world designed for cell phones. People with a right to place expectations on us (employers/clients/families) expect us to be able to respond within a couple of hours. Rather than being willing to pick a time and place to meet, friends expect to be able to say "just call me." Now that cell phones are widespread, failure to be able to meet these types of expectations will cause all kinds of problems similar to those of a lack of car (trouble with employers, inability to see friends and family), and just generally make life more difficult for you than it needs to be.

Cell phones are more than a convenience, they have become the way of life for my entire generation, as well as huge numbers of people from preceding generations. It's the failure to recognize this fact that is causing so many people to respond with "what's the big deal?"

[barmar]

pclayton, on Mar 31 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

WTF did we do before cell phones?

Right - we actually had to PLAN things.

And before cars we walked and rode horses, before washing machines we wore out our hands scrubbing clothes, etc.

It's really hard to turn back the hands of time. A few years ago PBS had a few reality series where they had families try to live like people did in frontier America and Victorian England. Quite an eye-opener, learning just how easy we have it now.