[Vilgan]

barmar, on Mar 27 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

Has there really been a significant problem with people not being able to get their phones back? One person posted in this thread that they were gone when he went to retrieve his phone (he says they "used pretty much the whole time", but my guess is that he actually ended his match pretty late).

I was that person. And no, we did not end late. I don't know that you are allowed to end late in the early days of the Vanderbilt.

Time on the clock was 2 minutes for the 2nd quarter when we finished. We compared, turned in result, and phone lady was gone.

[blackshoe]

I would have walked back into the playing room, found the director, and insisted that he find my phone. Right now. If he tells me he's too busy, or otherwise unable, I'll want to speak to the DIC, who, as the direct legal representative of the Tournament Organizer (see Law 81A), is responsible for correcting this problem.

[xcurt]

Gerben42, on Mar 27 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

Quote

Actually it was the IMP pairs. And since he played the entire final (with his Italian pro partner) he certainly wasn't inconvenienced by the policy. IMO it was grossly irresponsible of JEC to be in Detroit that Friday and not in NYC possibly helping broker a deal -- seeing as how the company was going to fail if it couldn't sell itself to another entity with a stronger balance sheet before the open of business the following Monday.

I think this is grossly unfair to Mr. Cayne. Apparently it is your opinion that CEOs do not have the right for time off, where they are simply out of office. It is my opinion that everyone has such a right.

1. Cayne was no longer CEO (having tendered his resignation after the big Q4-2007 losses). Cayne was Chairman of the Board and a very big BSC shareholder, maybe the single biggest one (I saw one estimate where the collapse of BSC cost him $900M). It's hard to conceive how a potential buyer would be able to conclude an acquisition of BSC in the required time frame, Cayne's absence could reasonably be presumed to have made it more difficult to do so. Since the Paulson/Bernanke team at Treasury and the Fed was going to offer the necessary guarantees to whichever other ibank they shotgunned into the impending marriage, it's also reasonable to conclude that Cayne's absence cost US taxpayers (including me) in one way or another. It's also not impossible to conclude that the political fallout from the BSC rescue led Paulson/Bernanke/Cheney/Bush to conclude that LEH should have been allowed to fail, and that was the event that really ignited the cycle of disinvestment we are still trying to break, at a cost that's going to be in the multiple trillions to US taxpayers and unknown additional costs to taxpayers in the euro zone and other member states of the G20.

2. Cayne was awfully well compensated for his work at BSC, and it's not unreasonable to hold him to standards different than you or me. Another poster already mentioned fiduciary responsibility.

3. There had been grumbling for some time among BSC shareholders about Cayne's priorities. When he wasn't at the table he was spending a lot of time playing golf. I don't have a reference handy but it shouldn't be hard to find one. This was a contributing factor, or at least reported as a contributing factor, in the BSC board forcing Cayne out of the CEO role.

[mike777]

Bottom line this is a huge story and one well worth reseaching and telling.

I have read several researched versions of this.

As in many forums stories..I hope to read versions: ownership vs employee.....


So far so many forum comments seem to focus on nonownership.

[Apollo81]

Since the nationals this summer will be in D.C. (which is roughly where I live), the subject came up at work (there aren't any other bridge players at work). In the course of things I mentioned the cell phone ban, and to my surprise the main reaction I got was "well of course cell phones are banned, it would be trivially easy to cheat using them since you could do it discreetly"

While I have been opposed to the ban, this reaction made me think twice about it. Perhaps I have been assuming that the number of people who would cheat if given an easy opportunity is a lot lower than it really is.

[blackshoe]

It is my impression that for some people, the number of people who would cheat if given the opportunity is easily computable: just pick any arbitrary number, and divide it by zero.

[Apollo81]

blackshoe, on Mar 31 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

It is my impression that for some people, the number of people who would cheat if given the opportunity is easily computable: just pick any arbitrary number, and divide it by zero.

This doesn't make any sense. If I were Justin then I would be posting a 3-letter acronym right now.

There are X people alive today, so the number is somewhere between 0 and X, inclusive.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Since the nationals this summer will be in D.C. (which is roughly where I live), the subject came up at work (there aren't any other bridge players at work). In the course of things I mentioned the cell phone ban, and to my surprise the main reaction I got was "well of course cell phones are banned, it would be trivially easy to cheat using them since you could do it discreetly"

While I have been opposed to the ban, this reaction made me think twice about it. Perhaps I have been assuming that the number of people who would cheat if given an easy opportunity is a lot lower than it really is.

So you were convinced by people who don't even know how to play bridge? Well done.

[awm]

I suspect that a lot of non-bridge players do not realize how ridiculously easy it is for a determined group of people to cheat at bridge.

There are many possible methods of cheating, and for every highly-publicized case of people being caught there are probably dozens of cases that go undiscovered.

With this in mind, there are essentially two approaches to dealing with the cheating problem.

(1) Create policies that make it more difficult to cheat. With sufficient coverage, it will become difficult for determined individuals to get away with it.

(2) Adopt a sort of "honor system" combined with draconian penalties for anyone who is actually caught cheating.

Either of these approaches is potentially reasonable. The issue I have with the cell phone ban is that ACBL's approach in the past has always been method (2), and this approach smacks of (1). Using a "little of one and a little of another" doesn't work -- banning cell phones does not substantially make it harder to cheat because there are so many alternative (and easier to implement) cheating methods available, so all it does is erode the "honor system" by suggesting that a certain set of people are cheaters, and inconvenience a large number of people (most of whom are probably not cheaters).

As I've mentioned before in related threads, if ACBL were to adopt a serious type (1) policy to prevent cheating, which would have to include substantially more use of screens and barometer style play, I would be much more willing to accept a cell phone ban as part of such a broad policy. Banning me from carrying my phone is a big inconvenience, but I am willing to suffer such an inconvenience if it will truly reduce or eliminate cheating in bridge. I do not believe that such a ban has any substantial such effect because it is just as easy to pass notes in the bathroom as it is to sit in the bathroom texting (not to mention that the cell phone ban, being essentially un-enforceable, does not really stop a determined cheater from sitting in the bathroom texting). So basically I am being inconvenienced for no benefit.

Non-bridge players probably assume an approach more like (1), as this is the common approach in most competitive sports (i.e. Olympics).

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

So you were convinced by people who don't even know how to play bridge? Well done.

Where did I say I was convinced? I just said my mind is more open than it was before.

[Apollo81]

All of the following were suggested during this conversation:

- Two members of the same team being away from the playing area at the same time during the match would appear suspicious. (obv this happens all the time in real life -- remember this is from a non bridge player perspective)

- There are many more people who would cheat in private (e.g. via texting) than in public (e.g. while playing at a table) for fear of being discovered

- Passing written notes (while abiding by the one-person-at-a-time-away-from-playing-area policy) is much more likely to be discovered and therefore would be practiced far less frequently than text cheating.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

So you were convinced by people who don't even know how to play bridge? Well done.

Where did I say I was convinced? I just said my mind is more open than it was before.

Sorry. Partially convinced? I just don't think their opinions have any validity.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

So you were convinced by people who don't even know how to play bridge? Well done.

Where did I say I was convinced? I just said my mind is more open than it was before.

Sorry. Partially convinced? I just don't think their opinions have any validity.

Well I'm still against the ban.

I just don't want to lose because there is a ridiculously easy, virtually undiscoverable way for my opponents to cheat. Name another such way?

[orlam]

Cheating at a pairs event is ridiculously easy. Every time anyone is going to the bathroom they have to make an effort in order not to cheat (not to see cards at the neighboring tables).
Cheating at other events is still very easy, and probably Noble's colleagues didn't realize that.

[Apollo81]

orlam, on Mar 31 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Cheating at a pairs event is ridiculously easy. Every time anyone is going to the bathroom they have to make an effort in order not to cheat (not to see cards at the neighboring tables).

In 10 years of tournament play I have never accidentally seen a hand or auction at another table, and I don't think I've been "trying" not to.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

So you were convinced by people who don't even know how to play bridge? Well done.

Where did I say I was convinced? I just said my mind is more open than it was before.

Sorry. Partially convinced? I just don't think their opinions have any validity.

Well I'm still against the ban.

I just don't want to lose because there is a ridiculously easy, virtually undiscoverable way for my opponents to cheat. Name another such way?

An opponent at the other table tells someone you don't know about a hand, who tells an opponent at your table when he goes to the bathroom.

An opponent walks just a few tables away and unobtrusively glances at a hand.

An opponent tells his partner what suit to lead by which of the 4 compas directions he places his pencil down on the table after writing down the contract (a pair was found guilty of doing this at a club I know of a few decades ago.)

And don't even get me started on pairs games, where you can talk to any person and find out about a board you haven't yet played.

I think cell phones are actually quite a difficult and ineffective way to cheat compared to other possible ways.

[Echognome]

awm, on Mar 31 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

I suspect that a lot of non-bridge players do not realize how ridiculously easy it is for a determined group of people to cheat at bridge.

There are many possible methods of cheating, and for every highly-publicized case of people being caught there are probably dozens of cases that go undiscovered.

With this in mind, there are essentially two approaches to dealing with the cheating problem.

(1) Create policies that make it more difficult to cheat. With sufficient coverage, it will become difficult for determined individuals to get away with it.

(2) Adopt a sort of "honor system" combined with draconian penalties for anyone who is actually caught cheating.

Either of these approaches is potentially reasonable. The issue I have with the cell phone ban is that ACBL's approach in the past has always been method (2), and this approach smacks of (1). Using a "little of one and a little of another" doesn't work -- banning cell phones does not substantially make it harder to cheat because there are so many alternative (and easier to implement) cheating methods available, so all it does is erode the "honor system" by suggesting that a certain set of people are cheaters, and inconvenience a large number of people (most of whom are probably not cheaters).

As I've mentioned before in related threads, if ACBL were to adopt a serious type (1) policy to prevent cheating, which would have to include substantially more use of screens and barometer style play, I would be much more willing to accept a cell phone ban as part of such a broad policy. Banning me from carrying my phone is a big inconvenience, but I am willing to suffer such an inconvenience if it will truly reduce or eliminate cheating in bridge. I do not believe that such a ban has any substantial such effect because it is just as easy to pass notes in the bathroom as it is to sit in the bathroom texting (not to mention that the cell phone ban, being essentially un-enforceable, does not really stop a determined cheater from sitting in the bathroom texting). So basically I am being inconvenienced for no benefit.

Non-bridge players probably assume an approach more like (1), as this is the common approach in most competitive sports (i.e. Olympics).

This reminds me a lot of Gary Becker's famous paper on crime and punishment. Rather than giving the link to the paper, I am attaching the wiki entry for Becker, who is a Nobel prize winning economist.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Gary_Becker

wiki said:

Crime and punishment
Becker’s interest in criminology arose when he was rushed for time one day. He had to weigh the cost and benefits of legally parking in an inconvenient garage versus in an illegal but convenient spot. After roughly calculating the probability of getting caught and potential punishment, Becker rationally opted for the crime. Becker surmised that other criminals make such rational decisions. However, such a premise went against conventional thought that crime was a result of mental illness and social oppression.

While Becker acknowledged that many people operate under a high moral and ethical constraint, criminals rationally see that the benefits of their crime outweigh the cost such as the probability of apprehension, conviction, punishment, as well as their current set of opportunities. From the public policy perspective, since the cost of increasing the fine is marginal to that of the cost of increasing surveillance, one can conclude that the best policy is to maximize the fine and minimize surveillance. However, this conclusion has limits, not the least of which include ethical considerations.

One of the main differences between this theory and Jeremy Bentham's rational choice theory, which had been abandoned in criminology, is that if Bentham considered it possible to completely annihilate crime (through the panopticon), Becker's theory acknowledged that a society could not eradicate crime beneath a certain level. For example, if 25% of a supermarket's products were stolen, it would be very easy to reduce this rate to 15%, quite easy to reduce it until 5%, difficult to reduce it under 3% and nearly impossible to reduce it to zero (a feat which would cost the supermarket, in surveillance, etc., that it would outweigh the benefits).

I believe further empirical studies have been done to show that the behavior of criminals is more affected by the probability of being caught than by the punishment if caught.

My personal view is similar. That is to say, that if we want to reduce cheating, the most effective strategies are costly and involve increasing surveillance.

[awm]

I think there is also a perception issue.

If my impression is that a large percentage of my opponents are cheating, then I will tend to become frustrated. My response will likely be either to quit playing competitive bridge (because its hard to beat the cheaters) or to start cheating myself. So adding annoying, unenforceable regulations that do not really prevent cheating has a substantial downside by creating the perception that a lot of people must be trying to cheat!

So the two approaches can also be read as:

(1) Make sure cheating is very difficult and everyone knows it.
(2) Create a public perception that cheaters are very few and encourage everyone to live up to the ethical standards being set by others.

By creating this sort of ban, ACBL gives the impression that there are many cheaters, and makes us all wonder what other ways to cheat these people will find now that their cell phones are taken away. Once we all realize that there are many difficult-to-detect methods available to these folks, we are put in the position of deciding to give up competing with the cheaters, cheat ourselves, or continue losing to folks who may well be cheating. Bad situation.

To give a similar legal situation, when I first started driving I was a law-abiding citizen and tried to drive below the speed limit. But I quickly noticed that very few others were doing this, and that in fact people were honking at me, tailgating me, and cutting me off in their desire to go faster. This quickly lead to me driving faster than the speed limit. If everyone else (or at least the vast majority of others) had been "law abiding citizens" then I would probably still drive under the speed limit today. Of course, the alternative solution of putting a huge number of cops on the road pulling people over is interesting but not logistically feasible.

[Echognome]

By the way, I am definitely against the cell-phone ban. Seems much ado for little gain. You are much better off having directors monitoring the playing area and the hallways, than you are implementing some silly ban. I think there hasn't been more uproar over the ban, because they were an annoyance with people forgetting to turn them off. Better to create stiff (IMP, MP) fines for the annoyance and remind people to turn them off before the start of play.

I thought the cameras on the playing site were a good deterrent, but it's impossible to measure how effective they were.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

And don't even get me started on pairs games, where you can talk to any person and find out about a board you haven't yet played.

You really don't play barometer tournaments over there still?

I guess we've played barometer only (very few exceptions) for more than 50 years over here. I still remember duplicating by hand in the early 80's myself (for a couple of tournaments I TDed for my club).