[blackshoe]

There are some (very few) people who are truly capable of doing two (or more) things simultaneously, such as reading a book and paying attention, as dummy, to the play of a hand. I would not find a person capable of that to be rude if he does it. OTOH, I've met some people who think they're capable of this, but actually aren't. Their rudeness is due to self-delusion, it's not (or at least, it's rarely) deliberate. It's the ones who know they can't do both who are truly rude.

[Vilgan]

On headphones... lots of younger people seem to be unable to live without their headphones. However, most of them only have the music in one ear (and fairly quiet) and are able to listen/respond/etc just fine. I don't see the problem there.

Eric

[uday]

You can already purchase "headphones" that are actually directly connected to their counterparts at the other table. As Mycroft said, there is no assurance that the headphone isnt connected to teammates/cellphone/vugraph as oppposed to music

[awm]

With all this uproar over cheating, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of banning:

(1) Purses and handbags. These could easily be used to conceal a cell phone or other electronic device. They also frequently contain paper which could be used to write notes about the hands to pass to other players, and may contain performance enhancing drugs of various sorts.

(2) Pants with pockets. Similar to the above.

(3) Hearing aids. Presumably these are okay if their purpose is to allow someone who is hard of hearing to have normal hearing, but they could easily be tuned to make it easier to listen in on conversations at the other tables (scouting the hands) or to receive signals from other players (communication device).

(4) Glasses. Similar to case 3.

(5) Pencils and private scores. These can be used to write down results of hands, which can then be shown to other players in the smoking area (giving them clues as to future boards).

(6) Visits to the restroom. No cameras in there, easy to pass notes between toilet stalls.

(7) Shoes. There is a documented case of a team from MIT using electronic devices in shoes to cheat at blackjack. There is also a documented case of someone trying to use a shoe bomb to blow up an airplane.

Seriously people, there are a zillion ways to cheat at bridge. Just because it is possible to rig up a pair of headphones or a cell phone to cheat, doesn't mean people are doing it. It also doesn't mean we should ban those things, or that banning those things will do anything to prevent any of the other zillions of ways of cheating.

The vast majority of cheating schemes at bridge revolve around one of two things:

( A ) Finding a way to communicate with partner outside of the established means. This can be done by way of foot signals, facial expression, how the cards are held, finger signals, secret agreements, or a zillion other ways. There are many famous scandals revolving around this sort of thing. However the vast majority of these are easily defeated by screens.

( B ) Finding a way to get information about boards which have not yet been played. This can be done by sneaking a peak at the hand records, listening to discussion from other tables, chatting with other players outside the playing area during breaks, passing notes, using cell phones, or signals from kibitzers. Although less high-profile than ( A ), there are many documented cases of this type of cheating as well. However, the vast majority of these are easily defeated by barometer play.

[3for3]

awm, on Aug 1 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

( B ) Finding a way to get information about boards which have not yet been played. This can be done by sneaking a peak at the hand records, listening to discussion from other tables, chatting with other players outside the playing area during breaks, passing notes, using cell phones, or signals from kibitzers. Although less high-profile than ( A ), there are many documented cases of this type of cheating as well. However, the vast majority of these are easily defeated by barometer play.

While it is true that baromoeter play eliminates some problems, it creates others.

There is little doubt when you overhear a result from another table, which board it is, especially with 2 board rounds. There was an incident at the Cavendish, as I understand it, which had this very problem.

The other major downside is the need for VASTLY more space between tables. There have been suggestions to get screens in the round of 32 in the V/S and the powers that be keep saying that we don't typically have the floor space to do so.

Danny

[paulg]

awm, on Aug 1 2008, 10:03 PM, said:

With all this uproar over cheating, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of banning:

(1) Purses and handbags. These could easily be used to conceal a cell phone or other electronic device. They also frequently contain paper which could be used to write notes about the hands to pass to other players, and may contain performance enhancing drugs of various sorts.

At the European Championships in Pau, random tables were selected to be searched for electronic devices.

Watching my 'women', it was always interesting to see the degree of trepidation that a male Director would exhibit as he approached the selected table. Most of the handbags required an iron man to lift them to the table and it transpired that a cursory glance was apparently sufficient.

I don't think any of the women were fined. However in the Open Serbia turned up late for their third match, removed an opponent's hand from the next board (thinking it was the previous one) and had a mobile phone go off whilst the Director was trying to rectify this!

Paul

[CSGibson]

inquiry, on Jul 28 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

Interstingly, a cell phone rang during the quarterfinals of the Spinggolds, 1st quarterr I think. That was just minutes after the director had issued the warning about cell phones at the start of play. I believe the ringing phone belong to one of the directors, or a kibitzer as it came from a non-table area. There was mild laughter. (It could have been from a mini-spingold player as they were in the same room.

I did leave my cell phone in the room, despite saying here before the event I would simply turn it off and ignore the ban per se.

I was actually kibitzing at the table this happened at. It was in the Gromov semi, and it was a kibitzer, with all the players looking on amused, and who didn't even bother to take his cell phone outside. The kibitzer merely put it on the table at the edge of the room, turned off. No directors came into the area to figure out what went on.

That was not the only cell phone I saw from kibitzers, either, when watching the Spingold. I guess the talk of monitoring stuff was just that - talk.

[JoAnneM]

If there is no good way to actually deter someone who is bent on cheating maybe we should find a way to pre-determine who the cheaters will be and eliminate them from the games beforehand. Perhaps some kind of psychological testing required of all NABC+ entrants or even when you join the ACBL. Or even better, maybe the winners should take a lie detector test after the games.

All tongue in cheek of course (I already got in trouble in another thread).

[blackshoe]

To quote a French Crusader, ca. 1000 years ago, "Kill them all. The Lord will know his own."

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Aug 12 2008, 03:04 AM, said:

To quote a French Crusader, ca. 1000 years ago, "Kill them all. The Lord will know his own."

This wasn't a French Crusader. It was a Churchman - as usual - It was at the onset of the massacre of the Cathars when the question was "How do we know who are the heretics?"

[blackshoe]

Pope Innocent III declared a Crusade against the Cathars. The Crusaders besieged the city of Béziers, and bade the Catholics to come out, and the Cathars to surrender. Both groups refused. The entire population was slaughtered and the city burned to the ground. It was, apparently, the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric who was alleged by one of the leaders of the Crusader army to have replied to a Crusader who asked how to tell the Catholics from the Cathars with "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens" or perhaps "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius". Amalric's report to the Pope tells a different story, however — that the "servants and other persons of low rank", attacked the town while negotiations about the release of the Catholics were ongoing, took the town in the space of a couple of hours, and "our men spared no one." An early example of "spin" perhaps. See this wikipedia article, in particular footnote 22.

[rigour6]

1) The cellphone ban reminds me of the old joke about the guy who lost his wallet in the alley but was looking for it under the street lamp because "the light's better here". I am going to assume the people who went for this ban aren't idiots, and just went with this because it's less effort and they hope it sends a signal that they're working to stop cheating.

2) To avoid blowback on deposit fees, the usual (easy) answer is to charge $2, yes, and post a sign that "all funds raised to be donated to the (insert bridge or other charity here)".