[awm]

Yeah people say my conspiracy theories are off the deep end but...

(1) Young working people have absolutely no representation with ACBL. We are a small minority, but even so the selection of ACBL BoD is hardly democratic. I have been an ACBL member in good standing for over ten years and have never been given the opportunity to vote for any representative at any level of ACBL. My understanding is that these people are selected by the unit boards, who are those people able to volunteer large amounts of time to the unit (i.e. people not trying to hold down a full-time non-bridge job).

(2) This is hardly the first decision that has come down from ACBL which severely inconveniences young working people. Another stinker was the early start times for Atlanta nationals (that's the equivalent of seven am for people coming from the west coast; when we complained about it we were told "just come to nationals a week early and get accustomed to the time zone" -- hardly an option for those of us where getting a week off work for nationals is already a hassle). The mysteries of the convention regulation committees (including the recent move to ban multi in pairs events) also seem well-aimed at younger players, as does the continuing proliferation (and recognition) of senior events that 95% of ACBL membership is eligible for. Even the masterpoint scheme seems lousy for young serious players (who aren't allowed to "play up" against good competition because they haven't accumulated enough participation points yet).

Sure it is nice to live in a world where we assume everyone has our best interests at heart. But in the real world most people have their own best interests at heart! All fine and good if the people making the decisions are people similar to oneself, but I haven't seen anyone under forty making major decisions at ACBL for quite a while, and the people in the 40-60 age range are almost invariably full time professional bridge player types. Why should I believe that people at ACBL are trying to prevent cheating rather than trying to appease old curmudgeons who hate cell phones and young players? I know a heck of a lot of bridge players who fit the "old curmudgeon" model, including a few on the BoD!

[barmar]

sceptic, on Apr 1 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

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 think this rule is an example of "low hanging fruit", i.e. doing something that's relatively easy to get started. The other proposals to deal with cheating require significantly more work and expense, such as having enough screens and duplicated boards for every table in the LM Pairs. The cellphone ban is just words on paper -- it's easy to make a rule that the players have to implement themselves.

[the hog]

barmar, on Apr 2 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

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.
snipped

So you are saying that we have lost the ability to plan things. Sad, very sad.

[finally17]

barmar, on Apr 1 2008, 11:36 PM, said:

sceptic, on Apr 1 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

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 think this rule is an example of "low hanging fruit", i.e. doing something that's relatively easy to get started. The other proposals to deal with cheating require significantly more work and expense, such as having enough screens and duplicated boards for every table in the LM Pairs. The cellphone ban is just words on paper -- it's easy to make a rule that the players have to implement themselves.

As has been said many times, it also has the BS effect of making it appear that you're taking valid steps, when you're not, while simultaneously extremely inconveniencing a population to the point of alienating them completely.

[finally17]

Here's what I know of Adam from these forums: he is reasonable, careful in argument, clearly-spoken, and polite. You all know these things as well. It saddens me that you all are so quick to conclude that he's being a crackpot, when you know better of him.

You know, conspiracies do exist. But even if this isn't a conspiracy (and I suspect it's not), that doesn't mean that there's not a subconscious (or unintentional) group effort (I suspect there is) to have the kinds of effects that Adam is disturbed by. Perhaps he is going a touch too far in the language he uses, but from this thread and others I would say that might have to do with frustration. It isn't easy to be young and play bridge competitively (time, money, etc etc), and at the very least all evidence suggests that the ACBL is doing absolutely nothing to make it easier, while simultaneously making it significantly more difficult where it suits their purposes (and has been argued rather effectively, to no good other effect).

His basic argument is that he and others in his category are under-represented in the decision and policy making of the ACBL. Can you really say this isn't true?

His conclusion is that all kinds of things happen because of this that have a negative effect on him and those in his category, that have less of a (or no) negative effect on members of other categories. Can you really say this isn't true?

Let's be clear: the category distinction here is one of age.

Ignore comments about conspiracy (note that that was not a term Adam used except in response), and just examine his points, the situation and it's effects. I think most people who would point blank call him wrong are being disingenuous.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 1 2008, 11:37 PM, said:

barmar, on Apr 2 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

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.
snipped

So you are saying that we have lost the ability to plan things. Sad, very sad.

Have you lost the ability to write a letter to us instead of posting on the forum? And yet here you are, and me, and thousands of others.

[barmar]

The_Hog, on Apr 2 2008, 12:37 AM, said:

barmar, on Apr 2 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

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.
snipped

So you are saying that we have lost the ability to plan things. Sad, very sad.

No, I'm saying that we've learned to use technology to make our lives easier. Being forced to plan everything in advance is not as convenient as being able to make decisions on the fly. It's harder to deal with last-minute changes.

For example, often your plans to play with someone are contingent on whether you get knocked out of some other event -- if you don't get knocked out, you can't play with them the next day. You need to contact them when you find the results of that first match. And they'd appreciate being contacted as soon as possible, so they can then try to make alternate plans.

I don't know how people dealt with this 20 years ago, I wasn't playing bridge then. I imagine there were lots of situations where someone didn't find out that their bridge date was cancelled until close to game time; or maybe they made extensive use of the bulletin board for messages.

It's kind of amazing how quickly things move from being novelties to conveniences to necessities: I can barely remember what it was like not being able to look things up on Google -- it seems like such a natural thing to do now.

[finally17]

barmar, on Apr 2 2008, 12:10 AM, said:

I can barely remember what it was like not being able to look things up on Google -- it seems like such a natural thing to do now.

It's been nearly 10 years since my roommate said to me, not at all joking, "what did we ever do without Google?"

And it's only gotten more true.

[awm]

To clarify, it's not that I believe anyone at ACBL sits there thinking "how can we screw over young players" and enacting policy to that effect.

In fact I believe they don't think about the effect of their policies on young players at all. Which is exactly the problem.

[jdonn]

Are you nuts? Haven't you seen bridgeiscool.com?

[TimG]

awm, on Apr 1 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

Sure it is nice to live in a world where we assume everyone has our best interests at heart. But in the real world most people have their own best interests at heart! All fine and good if the people making the decisions are people similar to oneself, but I haven't seen anyone under forty making major decisions at ACBL for quite a while, and the people in the 40-60 age range are almost invariably full time professional bridge player types. Why should I believe that people at ACBL are trying to prevent cheating rather than trying to appease old curmudgeons who hate cell phones and young players? I know a heck of a lot of bridge players who fit the "old curmudgeon" model, including a few on the BoD!

I was once (not so long ago) under 40 and in a position (District 25 President) to influence policy regarding the running of local regionals. (There are also those who would describe me as a curmudgeon, but no one would mistake me for a bridge professional.)

One of the few real powers I had was appointing people to committees (such as scheduling, CoC, disciplinary, etc.) that made recommendations to the District Board. I tried to appoint as many young people as I could to these committees (sometimes to the chagrin of individuals who had "always" served on these committees). Trouble is, there weren't that many young players to choose from, the ones that were appointed did not always commit the time necessary, and some, recognizing they didn't have the time, declined to serve (including at least one who has contributed to this thread).

There was some of the bias by omission that you describe. But, when 90% of ACBL membership is over 55 (I don't know if that % is accurate, but probably not that far off) and many decisions are made in an effort to please the majority, the decisions are going to be seen to favor seniors even if due consideration is given to other viewpoints. Starting times might actually be a case of catering to the young crowd -- the vast majority of tournaments are run with two-session events which start afternoon and evening, the choice of the younger crowd. (Also the choice of professional bridge players since it is easier to fit three sessions into a day.)

Anyway, you should not assume that those who are on the board have your best interests at heart -- board members can't have everyone's best interests at heart because not everyone has the same best interests. Which was, perhaps, your point, though I would not have framed it in terms of a conspiracy.

It may seem difficult to influence ACBL's BoD, though I suspect they do consider the opinions they receive from membership. It may seem to me like they ignore my opinions when I offer them, but I have been on the losing side of enough 12-1 and 11-2 votes to know that my opinions are often not held by the majority (or even a significant minority).

I do think that you can influence local policy. There are surely members of your local boards (Unit and District) who would listen to your opinions and even act on some of them. If you do show interest, it won't be long before you are asked to serve on some committee and find yourself involved in local administration.

[PassedOut]

awm, on Apr 2 2008, 12:35 AM, said:

To clarify, it's not that I believe anyone at ACBL sits there thinking "how can we screw over young players" and enacting policy to that effect.

In fact I believe they don't think about the effect of their policies on young players at all. Which is exactly the problem.

As one of the over-55 ACBL members, I've learned from this thread. These days I do have my cell phone handy, for both business and personal uses, but I truly did not appreciate what a huge impact the cell phone ban would have on younger players.

No doubt many of those who made the decision did not appreciate that impact either, focusing instead on keeping the game honest.

Thinking back on tournaments from days gone by, I don't recall having any trouble meeting up for dinner (or for drinks after the last session).

What I do remember though, is the tension I felt when game time was fast approaching and my partner or teammates had not yet appeared. How I hated that! A phone call letting me know what was up would have been most welcome, if that had been possible.

[pclayton]

There's even been a few tournaments where a cell phone didn't work in the playing area (Atlanta, and parts of the Chicago NABC). Sometimes these convention centers are several floors underground where there isn't reception.

LVCC doesn't have that problem - I've been there many times for ICSC in May.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 02:08 AM, said:

Are you nuts? Haven't you seen bridgeiscool.com?

Good one, Josh!

Apple announced a couple of weeks ago that they're opening up the iPhone to 3rd-party developers. Maybe someone should implement a BridgeMate type of application for iPhones. Then we'll actually have a good bridge reason to have these in the playing areas.