cell phone policy

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.org/wiki/Gary_Becker

 

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]

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).

[jdonn]

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).

I think the reason is logistical. You simply need so many more boards to play a full session.

[Mbodell]

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).

I think the reason is logistical. You simply need so many more boards to play a full session.

Now that dealing machines are starting to be more common around me, I hope we get more barometer style games. We have once a week a barometer game, and some of our unit games are run barometer style. Also some of our unit swiss games have hand records, which is also quite rare for swiss teams in ACBL.

 

But I agree that if cutting down on cheating is the primary motivation for cell phone ban that one can only consider it serious *after* the events have been turned into barometer style. I mean how much more is it really to do this for national events? The cost is already $20/player/session (or occasionally $17/player/session). With dealing machines the preparation ought not be ridiculously bad, and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

[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.

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.

Look up "hyperbole" in your dictionary. B)

[jdonn]

...and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact.

 

There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room.

[TimG]

...and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact.

 

There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room.

I've never played in such an event, but isn't it the case that there is generally a complete set of boards at the table and north takes out the appropriate ones for the round to be played?

[jdonn]

...and surely the ACBL can spring for enough cards and boards for the very top level national events.

Unfortunately, surely they can't (or at least surely they won't), and that's why it will not happen. I have been told by someone who knows that that is a fact.

 

There are other logistical problems as well. For example, after the round, instead of everyone passing the board down 1 table, the caddies/directors have to replace every board in the (very large) room.

I've never played in such an event, but isn't it the case that there is generally a complete set of boards at the table and north takes out the appropriate ones for the round to be played?

Yes, but I don't understand what you are getting at. If you use barometer in a 13 table section, then instead of needing 26 boards to complete the movement (2 on each of the 13 tables at a time) you need 169 (13 of each board). Further, instead of the boards being on the correct starting table and the players (easily) moving them for each round, someone has to collect all the boards every round and bring a whole new set for the next round.

 

Barometer is definitely better for the players and the game, but it's much more expensive and a huge logistical hassle.

 

Edit: Now I see what you meant, that at least there isn't an extra workload. I don't think that's the case, in my experience they won't give you boards at your table for rounds you aren't currently playing. Rightfully so imo. But someone else may know better, like Harold.

[Mbodell]

Edit: Now I see what you meant, that at least there isn't an extra workload. I don't think that's the case, in my experience they won't give you boards at your table for rounds you aren't currently playing. Rightfully so imo. But someone else may know better, like Harold.

In our club games, which may not be appropriate for 100% security, but sure as heck beats the current status quo - each table has a complete stack of all the boards. And the table just rotates the boards in. This is not unlike what sometimes happens in normal pairs movements where sometimes for an all 14 tables play the same 26 boards there is a N/S who have a complete stack of boards, and in these cases the stack is there for the event. That isn't considered a problem currently in national events.

 

At the club, for ease of preparation also sometimes there is one stack of boards for every 2 tables. This works very well for 3 board rounds (every table group is a relay), and slightly less well for 2 board rounds. But still, even in this form, I'd argue it is better than the status quo.

 

As for cost, I believe you when you say someone said it is too much, but really it is a one time expense and a set of boards is less than $60 without any special discount at Baron Barclay. So even a full set of boards per table, from one set per section means we need 12 new sets for every 13 tables currently in play. Even if there are 13 sections in an NABC event and there is no bulk discount this is still a one time cost under $10K.

[jdonn]

I still think it's being underestimated, in fact I think you have underestimated by a gigantic amount. For one thing you need LOTS of extra sets in case of misdeals or misplaced boards or boards breaking or more sections or multiple events. Also I don't know what boards you are looking at, but I am looking right now and the boards they use at nationals look like $90 to $130 to me [Edit: I now see the $60 boards, it's only fair of me to mention (although those are just 32 board sets so they couldn't even be bought, the 36 board sets are $68).], which doesn't even include the $3 per deck for cards with scanners (yes you need tons of new decks of cards too), so the cards cost even more than the boards. I seriously doubt it would get nearly as low as $60 each even with a bulk discount. And you still haven't flown them to the playing site, driven them to the hotel, stored them at the hotel, moved half of them to and from each table for every session (yes they do all this now but it would be on a MUCH larger scale). You haven't dealt them. You haven't stored them at ACBL headquarters. You haven't replaced them over time as they break and wear. You haven't paid for the extra machinery and manpower to deal them all for every session. And let's not forget that, not even having undertaken this project, the ACBL STILL felt the need to raise session fees at nationals in a bad economy. And you think they are going to take that on? Who would even organize such a thing, the ACBL has enough trouble just getting a committee to meet.

 

Btw, what nation are you where the boards are kept at each table in national events?? Wow. The fact that is being risked just shows what a logistical task running barometer is.

[Mbodell]

I still think it's being underestimated, in fact I think you have underestimated by a gigantic amount. For one thing you need LOTS of extra sets in case of misdeals or misplaced boards or boards breaking or more sections or multiple events. Also I don't know what boards you are looking at, but I am looking right now and the boards they use at nationals look like $90 to $130 to me [Edit: I now see the $60 boards, it's only fair of me to mention (although those are just 32 board sets so they couldn't even be bought, the 36 board sets are $68).], which doesn't even include the $3 per deck for cards with scanners (yes you need tons of new decks of cards too), so the cards cost even more than the boards. I seriously doubt it would get nearly as low as $60 each even with a bulk discount. And you still haven't flown them to the playing site, driven them to the hotel, stored them at the hotel, moved half of them to and from each table for every session (yes they do all this now but it would be on a MUCH larger scale). You haven't dealt them. You haven't stored them at ACBL headquarters. You haven't replaced them over time as they break and wear. You haven't paid for the extra machinery and manpower to deal them all for every session. And let's not forget that, not even having undertaken this project, the ACBL STILL felt the need to raise session fees at nationals in a bad economy. And you think they are going to take that on? Who would even organize such a thing, the ACBL has enough trouble just getting a committee to meet.

 

Btw, what nation are you where the boards are kept at each table in national events?? Wow. The fact that is being risked just shows what a logistical task running barometer is.

You don't need special cards for the dealing machines (at least if you use the type that were being shown in Houston that multiple clubs in d21 also have and use), just normal cards.

 

I guess I hadn't realized that the 32 board sets wouldn't work, but for many of the events wouldn't only 32 boards be enough when you are playing barometer style (I.e., you don't need more boards than are going to be played by any given person. Aren't most sessions somewhere between 26 and 32 boards depending on event).

 

You are right that I wasn't counting the extra manpower of preparing the deals. Given that I see people doing this for local weekly club games (which is not to discount my excellent local directors - just to show the bar isn't huge), and given people familiar with dealing machines can deal a set of boards very, very quickly, I didn't think this expense was really worth counting for super prestigious national events that only occur 3 times a year. Maybe it is the real cost that would stop people from doing this, but I think that is a pretty poor reflection of the event organizers - and once again in the context of a world where cell phone bans are needed to prevent cheating, represents an obvious huge improvement to prevent cheating that could be done and isn't.

 

There would be replacement costs and storage costs and transportation costs, but I was concentrating with more the initial cost as I had thought that was where the cost concern was.

 

As for where I've seen the boards next to the table for the duration of the session, the finals of NAP and Red Ribbon last year and this year both featured this. Maybe since these were limited national events they don't really count from your perspective, but really I think concern on this front is not a big deal - especially when there are cameras in the room and where the comparison is to the status quo situation.

[TimG]

You haven't replaced them over time as they break and wear.

In theory. replacement costs shouldn't be more than they are now, should they? If you have to replace a deck of cards after 1000 uses, that something like 75 sessions if the board is played 13 times each session. But, it is about 1000 sessions if it is only played once each session. So, while you need 13 times as many decks, they are used 1/13 as often.

 

This is not meant to suggest that the other costs you list don't make this prohibitively expensive in ACBL.