[awm]

During Houston nationals, my grandmother passed away unexpectedly.

If I had not had my cell phone, I would not have found out about this in a timely manner. I would not have been able to book a short-notice flight for the funeral. I would not have been able to inform my partner of what was going on in time for him to find a replacement to play in the national swiss.

Now, perhaps a "checked" cell phone would have sufficed for these purposes, since all the calls mentioned occurred between sessions. But given the problems others have had with the checking process, there is no guarantee that checking my phone would've allowed me to retrieve it quickly after the session. I doubt I'm unusual in preferring not to give my $200 phone (with oodles of personal information on it) to someone I don't particularly trust, who may simply disappear between sessions... and pay for the privilege. And I view demands that I do so as an accusation of cheating.

[TimG]

matmat, on Mar 25 2009, 11:33 AM, said:

TimG, on Mar 25 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

This may not be popular, but if an individual is required to have a powered up cell phone on their person 24/7, then I don't think they should be playing in the Spingold.

again, bull$**t

You mean it is a popular point of view?

[TimG]

awm, on Mar 25 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

During Houston nationals, my grandmother passed away unexpectedly.

If I had not had my cell phone, I would not have found out about this in a timely manner. I would not have been able to book a short-notice flight for the funeral. I would not have been able to inform my partner of what was going on in time for him to find a replacement to play in the national swiss.

Please do not take this as being insensitive to your situation. But, I find it difficult to imagine that 2-3 hours difference in notification (if the call had come during a session rather than between sessions) would have made a significant difference to your being able to book a flight or ability to inform your teammates of the situation.

BTW, 6 years ago, I received news while I was at an NABC that caused me to cut short my stay and return home (by plane) early. I received the news upon returning to my hotel room after a playing session and checking phone messages. So, my view is not based upon thinking that such situations cannot arise.

I think we just disagree on whether instant notification is a necessity or a convenience.

Quote

And I view demands that I do so as an accusation of cheating.

Do you also view the use of bidding boxes as an accusation of cheating?

I am opposed to the cell phone ban. I think cell phones (and pagers, etc.) should be off during a session, but I have no problem with anyone possessing one in the playing area. (I do think there should be enforced penalties when cell phones are found to be on.) But, I think reasons such as "they're accusing me of cheating" and "family needs to be able to contact me immediately should someone pass away" are rather weak.

[JoAnneM]

Then you are saying bridge is only for the retired (old people) or independently wealthy, but not for the gainfully employed (except for bridge pros). That is very elitest.

[awm]

I think what a lot of people misunderstand is that some of us stay in a different hotel from the playing site. This makes "leaving the phone in your room" extremely impractical. It also makes receiving messages impractical -- by the time I get back to my hotel room it will be after both sessions, and will often be past midnight, so any call I might've received cannot be easily returned. My flight reservation was made between sessions using Expedia via my phone and was for 6:20 AM the next morning; this would have been essentially impossible otherwise and there is no particular reason to think that any tickets would have been available seven hours later when I returned to my hotel after the evening session.

The stated reason for the phone ban is "to prevent cheating." So the implication is that people with cell phones are cheaters, or that enough of them are that we need to ban these devices. Especially considering that there are many other methods of cheating which the ACBL does not make any effort to prevent (people discussing hands during smoking breaks, people wearing hearing aids w/o a medical disability to hear what happens at other tables, people arriving late and looking at the hands as they are being duplicated, people taking inference from partner's facial expressions, people taking performance-enhancing drugs, etc) I feel there is a strong implication that young people with phones are less ethical than the bridge population as a whole (since we trust everyone else not to cheat when the opportunity arises). So yes, I think this ban is an accusation of cheating.

Bid boxes are applied equally to everyone, and do not particularly inconvenience anyone except the blind who are allowed to bid without them. In contrast, this phone business has a lot more effect on young people, who are more likely to have phones and also more likely to have jobs where they need to be contacted on short notice. And there is no exception for doctors or people expecting some emergency call to have their phones.

[helene_t]

awm, on Mar 25 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

Bid boxes are applied equally to everyone, and do not particularly inconvenience anyone except the blind who are allowed to bid without them. In contrast, this phone business has a lot more effect on young people[....]

More importantly, bidding boxes serve to prevent the accidental transmission of UI (as well as to prevent uncertainty about what call was actually made). It is perfectly consistent to insist on the use of bidding boxes and at the same time trust players not to cheat.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Mar 25 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

awm, on Mar 25 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

Bid boxes are applied equally to everyone, and do not particularly inconvenience anyone except the blind who are allowed to bid without them. In contrast, this phone business has a lot more effect on young people[....]

More importantly, bidding boxes serve to prevent the accidental transmission of UI (as well as to prevent uncertainty about what call was actually made). It is perfectly consistent to insist on the use of bidding boxes and at the same time trust players not to cheat.

And bidding boxes are a convenience anyway, allowing any player to easily see the entire auction. I mean that comparison wasn't even apples and oranges, it was apples and... tubas?

Tim I think almost everything you have said in this thread is, to put it kindly, baloney.

[matmat]

TimG, on Mar 25 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

But, I think reasons such as "they're accusing me of cheating" and "family needs to be able to contact me immediately should someone pass away" are rather weak.

How about : "my pet hamster got hit by a skateboarded and is on life support at the local vet clinic. It has 2 hours to live."

if i get this 4 hours after the session (when these good folks finally stroll in to return the cell phones) it will be too late.

[TimG]

Sorry to have riled some folks. I live in a world where I am frequently "unreachable" for hours at a time and I think nothing of it. I'm relatively young (at 41) in the bridge world, but old enough to remember that people seemed to cope just fine before cell phones even if it did take some extra effort.

I will bow out of the discussion now with the firm understanding that my views are those of a tiny minority (perhaps as small as one) of forum posters.

Tim
(Who you may be surprised to learn lives in a household with no land line!)

[awm]

TimG, on Mar 25 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

I'm relatively young (at 41) in the bridge world, but old enough to remember that people seemed to cope just fine before cell phones even if it did take some extra effort.

I just don't get this line of reasoning, which I have seen from many people other than Tim, including a number of letters to the ACBL bulletin.

The list of things that people "seemed to cope just fine before" is long and varied. To give just a few, all of which potentially help people play bridge better than they would otherwise and all of which are allowed to players even during a session:

Hearing aids
Halogen lamps
Coffee
Cigarettes
Indoor plumbing

No one suggests that just because people "seemed to cope just fine before" we had these things, or even because some percentage of the world's population still copes just fine without these things, that they should be banned from bridge competition. In fact some of these things are also arguably usable to cheat at bridge, and arguably as "annoying" as cell phones if not more so.

[jdonn]

awm, on Mar 25 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 25 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

I'm relatively young (at 41) in the bridge world, but old enough to remember that people seemed to cope just fine before cell phones even if it did take some extra effort.

I just don't get this line of reasoning, which I have seen from many people other than Tim, including a number of letters to the ACBL bulletin.

The list of things that people "seemed to cope just fine before" is long and varied. To give just a few, all of which potentially help people play bridge better than they would otherwise and all of which are allowed to players even during a session:

Hearing aids
Halogen lamps
Coffee
Cigarettes
Indoor plumbing

No one suggests that just because people "seemed to cope just fine before" we had these things, or even because some percentage of the world's population still copes just fine without these things, that they should be banned from bridge competition. In fact some of these things are also arguably usable to cheat at bridge, and arguably as "annoying" as cell phones if not more so.

Also electricity, heart surgery, playing cards.... comments like that just make people seem unable to adapt to a world that changes.

[rbforster]

jdonn, on Mar 25 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

Also electricity, heart surgery, playing cards.... comments like that just make people seem unable to adapt to a world that changes.

Without heart surgery, I'm sure the ACBL would lose (have lost?) a big fraction of its member-years! As soon as cell phones can double as their emergency pacemakers I'm sure we'll be required to have one at each table.

[TimG]

awm, on Mar 25 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 25 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

I'm relatively young (at 41) in the bridge world, but old enough to remember that people seemed to cope just fine before cell phones even if it did take some extra effort.

I just don't get this line of reasoning, which I have seen from many people other than Tim, including a number of letters to the ACBL bulletin.

I did not mean my statement about "seemed to cope just fine" to be an opposition to change, but rather a rebuttal of those who say they cannot live without constant cell phone access. Living without a cell phone, at least for brief stretches, is quite doable* even if it is not as convenient as possible.

Once again, I'll repeat that I think the ACBL's cell phone ban is a bad thing. But, the cries of "I need to be able to talk to family/co-workers at any instant" don't garner much sympathy from me.

* Except, apparently, for a few who are contractually obligated to carry one with them.

[H_KARLUK]

jmcw, on Mar 14 2009, 04:20 AM, said:

Maybe pitchers can have a time out and take a call on the mound.
Tiger could call his wife while lining up his putt.
How did we ever manage pre cell phones!
If you need a phone 24/7 go play millionaire and call a friend.

Sensible decision by the ACBL. End of story.

Sorry, not really end of story. Elvis did not leave this building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pager

"A one-way numeric pager can only receive a message consisting of a few digits, typically a phone number that the user is then expected to call."

http://www.sdwireles...agers/index.htm
http://www.epinions.com/513996_Motorola_LS...c_Pager__Black_
http://shopper.cnet.com/pagers/command-pri...9-30538261.html

There are many brands. No place to put here, sorry for that.

As one easily may see it's impossible to send message with a one-way numeric pager.

Please allow only one-way function numeric pagers, rest will work well.------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ACBL Board of Directors approved a comprehensive ban on electronic devices for all national-level events, but not to regional or Intermediate-Newcomer contests:
Electronic devices, excluding health-related equipment, capable of sending or receiving communication, including but not limited to, headphones, earphones, cellular phones and minicomputers:
(1) shall not be allowed in the playing areas, adjacent hallways, rest-rooms or accessible break areas; and (2) shall not be used during a session.
These restrictions shall apply to all pairs, team members, captains, coaches, recorders and kibitzers and shall apply throughout any actual playing session or segment.
A violation of this policy shall result in a disciplinary penalty of one full board (or 12 IMPs at that form of scoring) for the first offense.
A second offense shall result in disqualification from the event for the pair/team.
Kibitzers violating this policy shall be removed from the playing area for the remainder of the session.
Participants will be reminded not to approach the playing area with a personal electronic device in their possession, even if the device is turned off.

[matmat]

H_KARLUK, on Mar 25 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

As one easily may see it's impossible to send message with a one-way numeric pager.

This is not true.

[H_KARLUK]

matmat, on Mar 26 2009, 06:50 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Mar 25 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

As one easily may see it's impossible to send message with a one-way numeric pager.

This is not true.

Joke ?
A one-way pager is a passive receiver. One-way pagers do not contain transmitters.
Function and operation
Numeric pagers are the simplest of the type of devices offering only a numeric display of the phone number to be called and pager codes.
A one-way numeric pager can only receive a message consisting of a few digits, typically a phone number that the user is then expected to call.

You might figure out it is a walkie-talkie type...where it is two way, no it's not. Just go back th links i presented.

Gl !

[matmat]

H_KARLUK, on Mar 26 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

matmat, on Mar 26 2009, 06:50 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Mar 25 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

As one easily may see it's impossible to send message with a one-way numeric pager.

This is not true.

Joke ?
A one-way pager is a passive receiver. One-way pagers do not contain transmitters.
Function and operation
Numeric pagers are the simplest of the type of devices offering only a numeric display of the phone number to be called and pager codes.
A one-way numeric pager can only receive a message consisting of a few digits, typically a phone number that the user is then expected to call.

You might figure out it is a walkie-talkie type...where it is two way, no it's not. Just go back th links i presented.

Gl !

how about a kibitzer knows that a key card is offside, but droppable in a particular contract, so they go to the lobby and page the player?

[H_KARLUK]

matmat, on Mar 26 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

how about a kibitzer knows that a key card is offside, but droppable in a particular contract, so they go to the lobby and page the player?

I see, maybe such literal approach like i.e. black or white options. No gray, never a 3rd option. In other words : my way or highway.

Allright. My home my rules, their home their rules. Fair. Really.

[matmat]

H_KARLUK, on Mar 26 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

matmat, on Mar 26 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

how about a kibitzer knows that a key card is offside, but droppable in a particular contract, so they go to the lobby and page the player?

I see, maybe such literal approach like i.e. black or white options. No gray, never a 3rd option. In other words : my way or highway.

Allright. My home my rules, their home their rules. Fair. Really.

I think the major point is that if someone is determined to cheat, they will find a way; inconveniencing thousands of people to prevent one cheater might not be the way to go.

[H_KARLUK]

matmat, on Mar 26 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

I think the major point is that if someone is determined to cheat, they will find a way;  inconveniencing thousands of people to prevent one cheater might not be the way to go.

"The ACBL Board of Directors approved a comprehensive ban on electronic devices for all national-level events, but not to regional or Intermediate-Newcomer contests" etc etc.

Elvis has left th buildin' ; Frasier too