More cell phone drama

[jdonn]

These analogies about casinos and sporting events are completely inaccurate and have nothing to do with anything. They don't even deserve a response.

[barmar]

Joshs, you seem to be saying that unless you can remove ALL vulnerabilities, there's little point in removing ANY. E.g. putting locks on your doors is a waste of time and money, because burglars can break windows.

 

But there's no such thing as 100% security, it's always a matter of degree. You want to make things harder on the bad guys, because they're likely to prefer taking the easy way. If there are two cars, and one is locked while the other one isn't, they'll prefer to steal the unlocked one. Even a sticker saying "Premises monitored by XXX Security" probably lessens the likelihood that a house will be broken into, even if it's false (why take the chance that it's true when there are other houses to break into?).

 

Cheating and accusations of cheating are similar. Every step taken to remove a means of cheating makes it harder for the cheaters, and less likely that they'll attempt it. And accusers usually have to state the means that they think the cheaters were using; if there are fewer ways to cheat, the accusers are less likely to come up with a plausible means.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the cellphone ban the way the ACBL is doing it, but the general principle of trying to prevent means of cheating seems admirable.

[matmat]

Joshs, you seem to be saying that unless you can remove ALL vulnerabilities, there's little point in removing ANY. E.g. putting locks on your doors is a waste of time and money, because burglars can break windows.

 

But there's no such thing as 100% security, it's always a matter of degree. You want to make things harder on the bad guys, because they're likely to prefer taking the easy way. If there are two cars, and one is locked while the other one isn't, they'll prefer to steal the unlocked one. Even a sticker saying "Premises monitored by XXX Security" probably lessens the likelihood that a house will be broken into, even if it's false (why take the chance that it's true when there are other houses to break into?).

 

Cheating and accusations of cheating are similar. Every step taken to remove a means of cheating makes it harder for the cheaters, and less likely that they'll attempt it. And accusers usually have to state the means that they think the cheaters were using; if there are fewer ways to cheat, the accusers are less likely to come up with a plausible means.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the cellphone ban the way the ACBL is doing it, but the general principle of trying to prevent means of cheating seems admirable.

I think what he might be saying is that this regulation attempts to remove one of the less prominent ways of cheating and doesn't tackle the bigger issues, like people peeking at cards at other tables etc.

[inquiry]

Joshs, you seem to be saying that unless you can remove ALL vulnerabilities, there's little point in removing ANY.  E.g. putting locks on your doors is a waste of time and money, because burglars can break windows.

 

But there's no such thing as 100% security, it's always a matter of degree.  You want to make things harder on the bad guys, because they're likely to prefer taking the easy way.  If there are two cars, and one is locked while the other one isn't, they'll prefer to steal the unlocked one.  Even a sticker saying "Premises monitored by XXX Security" probably lessens the likelihood that a house will be broken into, even if it's false (why take the chance that it's true when there are other houses to break into?).

 

Cheating and accusations of cheating are similar.  Every step taken to remove a means of cheating makes it harder for the cheaters, and less likely that they'll attempt it.  And accusers usually have to state the means that they think the cheaters were using; if there are fewer ways to cheat, the accusers are less likely to come up with a plausible means.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the cellphone ban the way the ACBL is doing it, but the general principle of trying to prevent means of cheating seems admirable.

I think what he might be saying is that this regulation attempts to remove one of the less prominent ways of cheating and doesn't tackle the bigger issues, like people peeking at cards at other tables etc.

I think the ACBL should outlaw eyeglasses...those people who can't see futher than the end of their nose without them, would not be able to peek at opponents cards then. Just have them leave them in their rooms, or check them before entering the playing area. Maybe the caddys could earn a few bucks helping them find their tables too.

[awm]

I think Josh's point is that bridge has huge glaring holes in its security system. There are zillions of easy ways to cheat like:

 

(1) Talking to people about the hands during breaks.

(2) Having kibitzers signal people by where/when they come and go.

(3) Signals based on where people place their cards (especially when screens not in use).

(4) Undisclosed agreements.

(5) Leaving messages in bathrooms, or meeting people in bathrooms.

(6) Wandering around the pairs events glancing at the cards on various tables.

 

As long as nothing is done to deal with any of these, removing a relatively unusual and difficult way to cheat (cell phones) will not have any real effect on security. People who would have cheated with their phones will instead cheat in one of these other ways. The majority of cheaters are cheating in one of the other ways anyway. So the overall amount of cheating going on won't change much.

 

The costs associated with cell phone ban are quite high. Some people will ignore the regulations and get penalties, then raise a big stink about it. Some people will not go to as many nationals. However, these costs are mostly borne by young people who have jobs outside of bridge and travel to nationals to play in top flight competitive events but want to stay at a relatively cheap hotel, and like to visit friends and tour the host city.

[pclayton]

I thought at some national events they used bathroom monitors (I'm not kidding).

[joshs]

Joshs, you seem to be saying that unless you can remove ALL vulnerabilities, there's little point in removing ANY.  E.g. putting locks on your doors is a waste of time and money, because burglars can break windows.

 

But there's no such thing as 100% security, it's always a matter of degree.  You want to make things harder on the bad guys, because they're likely to prefer taking the easy way.  If there are two cars, and one is locked while the other one isn't, they'll prefer to steal the unlocked one.  Even a sticker saying "Premises monitored by XXX Security" probably lessens the likelihood that a house will be broken into, even if it's false (why take the chance that it's true when there are other houses to break into?).

 

Cheating and accusations of cheating are similar.  Every step taken to remove a means of cheating makes it harder for the cheaters, and less likely that they'll attempt it.  And accusers usually have to state the means that they think the cheaters were using; if there are fewer ways to cheat, the accusers are less likely to come up with a plausible means.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the cellphone ban the way the ACBL is doing it, but the general principle of trying to prevent means of cheating seems admirable.

I guess I need to repeat myself.

 

If I have two gates to a complex, and put an alarm at one but not the other it doesn't help at all. If I put alarms at both, but the fence is 2 feet high, and has no alarm, it still doesn't help. By, it doesn't help, I do not mean that it only improves security by "only" 1%. I mean it improves security by 0.

 

I also brought up the issue of psychological deterrence. I do beleive that there are some things which do not help security at all, but reduce the likelihood of an attack. For instance, I can put up a sign on my house that says "protected by XXX alarm company" and not have an alarm. That clearly will reduce the number of breakins (at least initially) by non-professional thiefs. Its unclear if a specialist will be effected. Furthermore, does it decrease breakins? No, you merely break into a house without the sign (just as you would cheat a different way). How about if every house had such a sign? Probably that will have some detterence effect, if somehow every house had a sign, but none of the crooks knew that the houses did not have any real security (which really is not beleivable)...In any case, it really is much more cost effective to have security measures that actually improve security, rather than spending resourses on only those that give the appearence (to an untrained eye) of improved security but don't help at all.

 

Effective security methods are things that either

a. eliminates the n most effective ways to cheat such that the n+1'th method is measurably less effective than any of the top n

b. improves your security against all forms of cheating (like paying soemone to walk around and look for cheating taking place)

 

To make this concreate suppose there were 5 ways to cheat:

A will be successful 90% of the time

B will be successful 90% of the time

C will be successful 89% of the time

D will be successful 70% of the time

E will be successful 20% of the time

 

Eliminating A gains you nothing (I can do B instead)

Eliminatating B gains you nothing (I can do A instead)

(Same for C, D and E alone)

Eliminating A and B gains you 1% which may or may not be worthwhile, depending on the costs of eliminating A and B, and the costs of successful cheating. Its a pretty exceptional case when this kind of improvement is really worth it.

Eliminating A, B and C gains you 20%, which is probably worth it, but again you been to look at costs and benefits. I certainly wouldn't do this if it cost every ACBL member $5000/year.

And so on.

 

 

Most "improvements to security" do not decrease the probability that someone will be able to cheat and get away with it (and thus are a complete waste of money). The goal is not a 100% reduction. Its a credible ability to catch more cheaters (and a cost benefit analysis is required to determine if decreasing cheating by say 1% is worth the assocaited cost). Merely forcing people to cheat in a different way does not in and of itself improve your probability of catching cheaters.

 

Having said that, I repeat that there are trivial ways to cheat right now that do not involve any technology. If you can't prevent those, eliminating things like cellphone use will clearly have no benefit...

 

In your analagy, we had a sign that said "we can detect all cheating with cellphones". So lets grant that it will reduce the amount of cheating with cell phones even if the detection claims are phony (which is a claim that is not necessarily true). Reducing one form of cheating does not reduce cheating unless that form is easier an/or more effective than others, which in this case its neither.

[Walddk]

One wise ass here (I am paraphrasing), said poor babies, no cell phone for 3 hours. Actually it becomes no cell phones for 15 hours if your hotel is nowhere near the facility.

What a tragedy. It is surely the end of the world. I promise to buy you a box of tissues the first time we meet (provided that planet Earth still exists of course) :rolleyes:

 

Roland

[joshs]

One wise ass here (I am paraphrasing), said poor babies, no cell phone for 3 hours. Actually it becomes no cell phones for 15 hours if your hotel is nowhere near the facility.

What a tragedy. It is surely the end of the world. I promise to buy you a box of tissues the first time we meet (provided that planet Earth still exists of course) :rolleyes:

 

Roland

I truely hate people who impose there values on others.

 

With my old job, for a while I had to be reached, it would mean that my choice would be:

 

a. Quit my job

b. Pay the extra $75 a day to stay in the host hotel

c. Lose my dinner break since I had to go all the way back to my hotel and then come back

d. not go to nationals

e. Carry the cell phone anyway

 

At the New York nationals my choices were:

a. Stay with my dad in New Jersey for at least part of it

b Be disowned

c. Not go not nationals

 

If I missed the last bus to my dad's, and didn't have a cell phone, I would be in trouble, and it was touch and go to make the bus after the session ended.

 

So I would have not attended NYC nationals under those conditions.

 

Different people value having a cell phone (when away from home) at different amounts. What values means, is if you were giving a choice between

a. Having the cell phone with you

b. Recieving $X of cash

You are indifferent (you would chose the cash for any value larger than X and the cell phone for any value smaller)

You might assign a negative number to X, I might assign a $50 value to X, someone else (for instance, who's job requires it) might assign $5000.

 

I would curse at you now, but it would just be deleted. Anyway, I honestly don't give a hoot what you think. I will choose to attend nationals less. Others will also. Thats the cost of the decision to the ACBL.

[sceptic]

If I missed the last bus to my dad's, and didn't have a cell phone, I would be in trouble, and it was touch and go to make the bus after the session ended.

 

can wait until someone invents legs

[TimG]

If I missed the last bus to my dad's, and didn't have a cell phone, I would be in trouble, and it was touch and go to make the bus after the session ended.

 

can wait until someone invents legs

You're suggesting that he could have walked to his father's house in NJ if he missed the last bus?

[jdonn]

If I missed the last bus to my dad's, and didn't have a cell phone, I would be in trouble, and it was touch and go to make the bus after the session ended.

 

can wait until someone invents legs

It would take several days to walk to someone's house in New Jersey from the play site in New York City. But thank you for your contribution, useful as always.

[hrothgar]

If I missed the last bus to my dad's, and didn't have a cell phone, I would be in trouble, and it was touch and go to make the bus after the session ended.

 

can wait until someone invents legs

I suspect that one of Josh's concerns was that his father would have been stuck at the bus station waiting him with no clue when he might show up..

[pclayton]

WTF did we do before cell phones?

 

Right - we actually had to PLAN things.

[joshs]

If I missed the last bus to my dad's, and didn't have a cell phone, I would be in trouble, and it was touch and go to make the bus after the session ended.

 

can wait until someone invents legs

Are you an idiot??? My dad lives about 30 miles away. I also have to cross a river.

[jtfanclub]

WTF did we do before cell phones?

 

Right - we actually had to PLAN things.

You're absolutely right. My teammate should have PLANNED to be be held by the INS for five hours and dropped off in the middle of nowhere. What the hell was she thinking?

 

And all those people who ended up in the middle of nowhere because of the snow storm that blanketed everything south of the state border? Their teammates should have PLANNED to have them get stuck in a ditch two hours before game time so that they'd use subs instead.

 

Detroit is just such a wonderful example. If people hadn't been allowed to take their cell phones to hotel, I suspect we'd have had a lot fewer tables. Between the border, the snow storm, and the city itself, who would want to go if they couldn't inform their partners/teammates if something happened?

 

Anybody actually have table numbers for the Nationals before the advent of cell phones?

[jdonn]

What is this talk like we used to get along fine without them therefore people who want them are whiny babies? We used to get along fine without cars too. Cell phones are not just some toy that a few random people don't want to give up. They make a HUGE lifestyle difference for most people who have them, and that is 10x more when they are away from home.

[finally17]

These analogies about casinos and sporting events are completely inaccurate and have nothing to do with anything. They don't even deserve a response.

There are many things here that are so inaccurate it's a waste to reply to them. But I'll bother cause I'm silly.

 

re: real sporting events: sure, in most professional sports the players don't carry their phones, but you can bet that someone near Tiger can be reached in case of emergency, that LeBron's phone is no further away than his locker (which can be reached in a matter of seconds), and in the NFL they have phones right on the sidelines for the players (and still many carry theirs in their jerseys).

 

these sports have real solutions to the problem.

 

re: casinos, planes, and hospitals: planes and hospitals are a matter of safety, no one is talking of risking anyone's life by carrying a cell phone at a NABC. as for casinos, i don't frequent them but the last time i was in one, four years ago, there was no indication that i wasn't allowed to have my phone in my pocket...as for their use on the casino floor, well, not a single person in these threads has advocated being able to use their phone in the playing area, just being able to carry it.

 

so none of these three situations are analogous.

 

as regards security, joshs' post is great, but to put it more simply for those of you who couldn't follow: taping over the pinprick in your hot-air balloon won't mend the tear and prevent you from falling to your deaths.

[joshs]

WTF did we do before cell phones?

 

Right - we actually had to PLAN things.

Well we used to plan things, but inevitably:

a. someone would be late

b. someone would be lost

 

I think I managed to meet up with my friends, according to plan, less than 50% of the time. It was not that big deal if we had 5 hours blocked off for a 2 hour visit, but its not so good if you really had only 2 hours free so could not afford the inefficinecies of old.

 

BTW, while I might be able to say to my college roomate lets meet at this time and place when I am in town, but there is a 50% chance they might have to change there plans at the last second, so being able to reach me was critical.

 

Also, I don't know if you noticed, but public telephone booths have mostly disappeared. What would superman do....

[finally17]

I feel the need to add that I'm sickened by all the comments about whiny babies and children. If the younger people in this crowd were to start complaining about all the elderly that played bridge, both the playing against them and the logistics of having them in the event, you all would bitch-slap us with accusations of ageism so fast our heads would spin.

 

But we make perfectly valid points about why we want to be able to carry cell phones and rather than bothering to recognize their validity you start using these derogatory terms.

[the hog]

roflmao. This is the best thread on these forums in years. I can't believe some posters are so attached to their mobile phones that it seems to require surgeryto separate them from their toys. Why can't you check them in at the door?

 

Personally I hate the damn things and avoid them as much as possible.

[matmat]

roflmao. This is the best thread on these forums in years. I can't believe some posters are so attached to their mobile phones that it seems to require surgeryto separate them from their toys. Why can't you check them in at the door?

 

Personally I hate the damn things and avoid them as much as possible.

I think i've stated before that i dislike cell phones, but they are convenient and often necessary, especially when one doesn't sit on one's ass all day on some desert island.

 

we can't check them at the door, because there is no f#@$@#$ facility to do so. frankly, i don't trust the director(s) to keep track of the deluge of phones that they'd be getting.

[irdoz]

This argument reminds me of a now defunct online bridge site. When they were setting up they did a survey of potential subscribers and the #1 thing people wanted was measures to prevent online messenger programs. A number of people said i) it wouldnt stop cheating and ii) it would mean decreasing the enjoyment for many people for whom being able to chat while online is a major part of what they like to do while playing bridge

 

Sure enough they implemented software to make using messenger more difficult, it did nothing to diminish the rate of actual cheating as far as I know and I know of a whole lot of people who chose not to play or stay there because of the difficulty in using messenger.

 

Making cellphones unavailable will not diminish actual cheating (Joshs posts demonstrate this) but they will increase the perception that it is harder to cheat and get the approval of a whole lot of members as a result (despite actually achieving nothing). The unintended impact is that a whole lot of people (and most likely more younger members) will choose not to go to these events at all - which seems unwise.

 

(BTW I totally loathe mobile phones - having experienced being on call 24/7 - but they have become a necessary part of the way I live unfortunately)

[jdonn]

roflmao. This is the best thread on these forums in years. I can't believe some posters are so attached to their mobile phones that it seems to require surgeryto separate them from their toys. Why can't you check them in at the door?

"Check them in at the door" would be a stupendous idea if they set up a way to do so. 300 people leaving their cell phones at the loosely-guarded-at-best director's table and then having everyone try to get them at the same time as the session ends does not qualify.

 

Your post is twice as much a roflmao to anyone who has a cell phone as theirs are to you. Pejoratively calling them 'toys' just shows how completely irrelevant your view of the issue is.

[finally17]

I can't say it would help me, but the ACBL might go some distance convincing some people of the necessity of this type of ban if they would reveal some significant evidence (names blacked out, whatever) that cell phones as a cheating tool are a significant method of cheating.

 

Just getting Rick Beye and some other tournament directors to offer affidavits that they have presided over a relevant # of cell phone cheating cases could go a long way for some people.