[TimG]

mike777, on Jun 6 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

These threads do surprise me that so many people cannot go away on vacation and have no contact with your job for even 24 hours let alone one or two weeks without the boss getting mad at you.

I think if you take a closer look at the threads, there really aren't that many people who claim they can't be out of touch for a day. People claim that they don't want to be inconvenienced or that this new rule is simply window dressing.

[h2osmom]

This isn't an answer, but it is a response to Mike777 question about how the ban worked at USBF trials. Consider the logistics for the Cavendish, or USBF trial, or WBF event. How many people compete in these. Alternatively, consider the Spingold, all 3 flights, and consider how many people compete in that. A coat check type system for the smaller tournaments, or asking a director to carry them, seems doable in the smaller venue, but a logistical nightmare for the Spingold.

[mike777]

h2osmom, on Jun 6 2008, 04:58 PM, said:

This isn't an answer,  but it is a response to Mike777 question about how the ban worked at USBF trials.  Consider the logistics for the Cavendish,  or USBF trial,  or WBF event.  How many people compete in these.  Alternatively,   consider the Spingold,   all 3 flights,  and consider how many people compete in that.  A coat check type system for the smaller tournaments,  or asking a director to carry them,  seems doable in the smaller venue,  but a logistical nightmare for the Spingold.

I agree, as I understand the rule they really want you to leave the phone at the Hotel, period.

I agree it now seems the main point is inconvience not life or death or losing a job and that the powers that be do not understand how strongly bridge players feel about this issue. In Fact the CEO has repeatedly said just the opposite, not that many mind at all. Perhaps this is the main issue.

As for suggestions on real security, it is clear the CEO has a few now in hand from forum posters.

Hopefully they will soon.

[matmat]

mike777, on Jun 6 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

In Fact the CEO has repeatedly said just the opposite, not that many mind at all. Perhaps this is the main issue.

How many people has he actually asked?

I would love to find that out...



and yeah, i find it absurd that whatshisface totally ignored the implication of not having screens available in the first round of the spingold etc. that Elianna mentioned. maybe things need to be spelled out a little more explicitly for these folks.

[pclayton]

I'm really starting to wonder who is complaining about the cell phones.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Jun 6 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

I'm really starting to wonder who is complaining about the cell phones.

I know Bobby Wolff wrote alot about cheating, including the whole phone issue, in his new book.

[blackshoe]

I get the impression that Wolff thinks everybody cheats.

[paulg]

mike777, on Jun 6 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

In any event how did this rule work or not work at the USBF trials?

The vast majority of the contestants will be used to this ban at WBF events, and it also replicates the conditions of contest at the Olympiad.

I guess most could afford to stay at the host hotel too.

Paul

[geller]

blackshoe, on Jun 7 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

I get the impression that Wolff thinks everybody cheats.

I've only met him a few times over many years and briefly at that, but I can't imagine he thinks "everyone cheats." Perhaps he thinks that it's important to eliminate possible ways in which improper conduct could occur.

As a non-participant in ACBL tourneys for about the last 20yrs, I don't have "a dog in this fight." After reading this thread I have a suggestion though. Running a tourney is in some sense like developing a new software product. Before you release your product to the market you run through a series of "beta tests," where real or potential customers test-drive the product before its general release.

The cell-phone ban is like a new software product (in some senses). I fully agree with the stated reasons for the ban, but I also agree with the posters who point out the problems with loss of access, etc.

My suggestion would be that at the summer nationals the ACBL should suspend the cell-phone ban except for the last three rounds of the Spingold (quarters, semis and final). These are the rounds for which security is most important anyway, and there are only 8 (then 4 then 2) tables. If the ban works out OK it could gradually be expanded to other events at future nationals, while problems that occur could be ironed out before larger scale implementation.

-Bob

[JanM]

geller, on Jun 7 2008, 06:39 AM, said:

My suggestion would be that at the summer nationals the ACBL should suspend the cell-phone ban except for the last three rounds of the Spingold (quarters, semis and final).  These are the rounds for which security is most important anyway, and there are only 8 (then 4 then 2) tables.  If the ban works out OK it could gradually be expanded to other events at future nationals, while problems that occur could be ironed out before larger scale implementation. 

A cell phone ban was enforced for the last 3 (or perhaps 4, I've forgotten) rounds of the Vanderbilt in Detroit, with no problems.

And in response to the question about the cell phone ban and the USBF Trials, it was interesting that this year far fewer people brought their cell phones to the playing area than have in the past. We didn't actually count the number, but all of us who were involved agreed that many fewer cell phones were left with us and therefore we believe that many more were left in hotel rooms.

The only problem we had with the ban this year was one kibitzer who has yet (to my knowledge) to pick up his cell phone .

[glen]

JanM, on Jun 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

...And in response to the question about the cell phone ban and the USBF Trials...

From the picture in the USBF bulletins, it appears the USBF had a Electronics Jan

[jdonn]

JanM, on Jun 7 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

A cell phone ban was enforced for the last 3 (or perhaps 4, I've forgotten) rounds of the Vanderbilt in Detroit, with no problems.

Why does everyone always say "with no problems"? With all due respect, someone left their phone behind, and many other people were probably inconvenienced. If they didn't complain that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.

[geller]

jdonn, on Jun 8 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

JanM, on Jun 7 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

A cell phone ban was enforced for the last 3 (or perhaps 4, I've forgotten) rounds of the Vanderbilt in Detroit, with no problems.

Why does everyone always say "with no problems"? With all due respect, someone left their phone behind, and many other people were probably inconvenienced. If they didn't complain that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.

It would be nice if there had ben a questionnaire survey of the affected players in Detroit to get some objective data on opinions regarding the new rule. Was this done?

[jdonn]

geller, on Jun 7 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 8 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

JanM, on Jun 7 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

A cell phone ban was enforced for the last 3 (or perhaps 4, I've forgotten) rounds of the Vanderbilt in Detroit, with no problems.

Why does everyone always say "with no problems"? With all due respect, someone left their phone behind, and many other people were probably inconvenienced. If they didn't complain that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.

It would be nice if there had ben a questionnaire survey of the affected players in Detroit to get some objective data on opinions regarding the new rule. Was this done?

I hope you are not trying to imply that the ACBL cares about the opinions of its members who are not in power. Blasphemous...

[geller]

geller, on Jun 8 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 8 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

JanM, on Jun 7 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

A cell phone ban was enforced for the last 3 (or perhaps 4, I've forgotten) rounds of the Vanderbilt in Detroit, with no problems.

Why does everyone always say "with no problems"? With all due respect, someone left their phone behind, and many other people were probably inconvenienced. If they didn't complain that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.

It would be nice if there had ben a questionnaire survey of the affected players in Detroit to get some objective data on opinions regarding the new rule. Was this done?

I like the odd snark myself now and then, but may I suggest you use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. I'm sure the ACBL people care about member opinion but like any organization run by human beings things don't always work perfectly. Also, there are lots of different groups and it's hard to please everyone. If you feel a mistake has been made there are lots of channels, formal and informal, for trying to input your point of view. I know it can be frustrating at times but you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar.... or something like that.

[jdonn]

geller, on Jun 7 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

geller, on Jun 8 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 8 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

JanM, on Jun 7 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

A cell phone ban was enforced for the last 3 (or perhaps 4, I've forgotten) rounds of the Vanderbilt in Detroit, with no problems.

Why does everyone always say "with no problems"? With all due respect, someone left their phone behind, and many other people were probably inconvenienced. If they didn't complain that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.

It would be nice if there had ben a questionnaire survey of the affected players in Detroit to get some objective data on opinions regarding the new rule. Was this done?

I like the odd snark myself now and then, but may I suggest you use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. I'm sure the ACBL people care about member opinion but like any organization run by human beings things don't always work perfectly. Also, there are lots of different groups and it's hard to please everyone. If you feel a mistake has been made there are lots of channels, formal and informal, for trying to input your point of view. I know it can be frustrating at times but you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar.... or something like that.

This is a forum for me to vent / pretend I'm funny. I did write a letter to the CEO, I'm not sure what other lengths you want me to go to without using more time and effort than is warranted. If you want me to state it explicitely: I believe they do not care about anything as a group other than making those in power happy.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Jun 7 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

JanM, on Jun 7 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

A cell phone ban was enforced for the last 3 (or perhaps 4, I've forgotten) rounds of the Vanderbilt in Detroit, with no problems.

Why does everyone always say "with no problems"? With all due respect, someone left their phone behind, and many other people were probably inconvenienced. If they didn't complain that doesn't mean it wasn't a problem for them.

The world is full of inconveniences, we learn to take them in stride. And someone leaving their phone behind is their own fault.

Did anyone miss any critical phone calls because they didn't have their cell phones with them? THAT would be a real problem.

[h2osmom]

If we go to the WBF website, photo gallery, page 7, there is a photo of Welland, standing next to a screened table, talking on a cell phone. What should I make of this? Am I seeing it wrong?

[rbforster]

h2osmom, on Jun 7 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

If we go to the WBF website,  photo gallery,  page 7,  there is a photo of Welland,  standing next to a screened table, talking on a cell phone.  What should I make of this?  Am I seeing it wrong?

Prima facia evidence of his cheating under the ACBL's Old World Order. After extensive committee meetings and a slander lawsuit filed against the ACBL, everything will be hushed up.

[jeffford76]

I sent the following email to both my district representative and Jay Baum:

Quote

I am extremely disappointed by the recent decision to ban cell phones at NABC's and hope to see it reconsidered.

The benefits of a security policy should outweigh its costs.  In this case the security benefits have been wildly overestimated.  There are many ways to cheat at a tournament if one is so inclined, especially at one in which boards are not played simultaneously.  Given that cell phone communication requires a collaborator, any message you could receive by cell phone could just as easily be communicated in the bathroom, in the hallway, or even by leaving a message from a pay phone on a home answering machine.  In fact I don't see *any* security improvement.

In addition it appears the costs have been underestimated.  I don't care about the ability to have a phone during the sessions, but I care a great deal about having it between sessions.  At such a large site the ability to make dinner and other plans is greatly enhanced by having a cell phone.  Many people also need to be easily reachable for work or family reasons.

I will not be staying at the host hotel in Las Vegas for cost reasons.  It is thus not feasible to leave my cell phone in my room.  I would prefer not to leave it with a checking station.  Will there be a guarantee that I will get it back?  I am especially disappointed that a fee will be charged for this service that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Finally I believe that this rule will be widely ignored.  It is bad policy to make rules that are only sporadically enforced as it causes people to lose sight of the importance of other rules.  I do not believe that if I carry a satchel or if a lady carries a purse with a cell phone inside it, especially if the battery is removed, that anyone will notice the violation.

In short, the rule is ineffective, annoying, and unenforceable and should be overturned.

I never received a response from the district representative (it's been several days) and received the following response almost immediately from Jay Baum:

Quote

Dear Jeff:
Thank you for your comments regarding the cell phone policy.We hope this policy will eliminate one of the avenues available for players to create an unfair advantage.While we know that enforcement will be no easier than enforcing speed limits , we do feel a mandate to take every step feasible to have a level playing field. Checking your phone will be very similar to checking a coat.The minor inconvenience , in the opinion of most , will be outweighed by protecting the integrity of the game. I do appreciate you taking time to send your comments.
Kindest regards,

I sent the following reply which received no response (after several days):

Quote

I am disappointed in this response because I don't think you have addressed my main concern.  It doesn't help to eliminate one way to cheat as long as there are other equally easy ways to cheat.  It's especially bad when this is done with a policy that has high cost to those of us who are not cheating.

I am also curious about "in the opinion of most".  I was never asked my opinion on this matter, and I do not know of anyone who was.  What group of people is encompassed in "most"?

Finally it is insulting to use the phrase "minor inconvenience" in reference to a check station with a fee.  I don't consider any charge to have access to my phone "minor".

If you haven't done so I would highly recommend reading the book "Beyond Fear" by Bruce Schneier.  It analyzes security/cost tradeoffs in several contexts.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that there will not be any response about who the "many" people are who want this ban. I strongly suspect that it has nothing to do with security, but is in place because of a desire to stop phones from ringing during events.