[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.

[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.