[jillybean]

From another thread;

 blackshoe, on 2021-June-07, 17:14, said:

On the other hand, it is fruitless, club game or no, to give repeated warnings and never take any further action. Pretty soon players learn "he's never going to do more than warn me, so I can keep doing whatever with impunity".

At many club games we are reminded to "please turn off your phone" before the game.

Undoubtedly, once or twice a phone will ring during the game and some people have funny ringtones on their phones which causes some amusement in the otherwise dull club game.
"Turn your phone off"

At one club, the players leave their jackets and bags not with them but on tables around the room.
When a phone rings during a game the person is often too embarrassed, or too busy playing, to get up and turn their phone off, so we get the full 3 minute ringtone.

I am toying with the idea of getting a dozen people to set their phones up to ring in a symphony during one of these games.

This brings to mind, a plan I hatched with a Director friend in Vancouver, she ran games at the old Vancouver Bridge Centre site. I was going to have an old phone on the table and have my own phone, in my pocket, ring during the game. When my phone went off, the Director, exasperated with people ignoring the phone rule, was going to storm over to my table, take my phone, throw it on the floor and stamp on it. We never did pull it off, she was worried how the Club Manager would react.

[pescetom]

If you want to pull that one you should at least equip the Director with a silver hammer

Oddly enough, given Italian intolerance of rules, phone calls are no big problem here. Yes occasionally it will happen, and I have been looked at amiss when I raised a handbag that was ringing and asked who owned it, but on the whole it's no issue.
Although our regulations forbid phones turned on, it is increasingly common for the club to use player's phones for scoring and for viewing system cards, so the ban seems unrealistic and anachronistic.
It's unfortunate that many (all?) phones do not allow you to disable incoming calls without disabling internet access.

[pilowsky]

What you appear to be suggesting is that it is possible to inject humour into Bridge.
This is outrageous.

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2021-June-12, 15:26, said:

It's unfortunate that many (all?) phones do not allow you to disable incoming calls without disabling internet access.

All phones allow you to silence the ring tone.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2021-June-14, 06:18, said:

All phones allow you to silence the ring tone.

Yes, but that's not something you can do with one touch (like turning off wifi, or whatever) and it is also discourteous towards the caller who is forced to wait in vain.
Recent Android does allow one to set 'Do not disturb' under Notifications, which is one touch and works for phone and whatsapp, but is still discourteous to a phone caller (a message "Sorry, Do not disturb" would be much better IMO).

[mycroft]

Nothing is discourteous to the phone caller. They are *not* entitled to your time *.

You're not available, you're not answering. Doesn't matter if you're playing bridge, talking to your family, driving, having sex, or reading your book, or "just don't feel like it right now". Or your phone is out of battery or you left it in the bathroom and didn't hear it. Does Not Matter.

Random phone caller - even a very good friend - is *not* entitled to your time. If "I need to be available if this happens, not likely but possible", hand your phone to the TD and explain, and they will let you know if it does. Otherwise, the people you're actually interacting with - paying to interact with - are the ones entitled to your time.

Part of the reason I avoided getting a "leash" for so many years (had a tablet, had data, could be emailed whenever, but no phone) was explicitly because if they have your number, people expect you are reachable on their schedule. "no phone, sorry" was the only way to stop that - and they'd ask "why? That's not fair to other people" (meaning *me*). "Because I don't need one" (meaning "yes, that's the point"). I have one now, but that's because my world has subscribed to the millenial-and-younger view that "who calls people? Text them" and "texts are not a demand, they're a 'whenever'" (as long as whenever is some reasonable time like "today"). Anybody I don't recognize automatically goes to voicemail. Anybody who doesn't leave a voicemail gets ignored. Anybody I do recognize who complains when I don't answer right now gets put on the autoignore list (there are some, like family, who would get a lecture and a second chance).

My time is *my time*, and expecting to get access to it on your schedule is the discourteous act, not "not answering".

* Away from work, at least - and even at work, "answering your personal phone" without a good reason can be grounds for termination. If you're not prepared to treat your co-players at the bridge game with the same consideration you treat your cow-orkers, I don't see any reason why the tournament shouldn't reply similarly to your work)

[pilowsky]

 mycroft, on 2021-June-15, 08:55, said:

Nothing is discourteous to the phone caller. They are *not* entitled to your time *.

You're not available, you're not answering. Doesn't matter if you're playing bridge, talking to your family, driving, having sex, or reading your book, or "just don't feel like it right now". Or your phone is out of battery or you left it in the bathroom and didn't hear it. Does Not Matter.

Sounds pretty discourteous to me. What if it was your wife calling?

[barmar]

 pilowsky, on 2021-June-15, 15:38, said:

Sounds pretty discourteous to me. What if it was your wife calling?

If she doesn't understand that bridge takes priority, the marriage is already in trouble.

[pran]

I remember a time when sounding a mobile telephone during a Bridge competition automatically resulted in a fine of US$100 (was it?).

[pilowsky]

 barmar, on 2021-June-15, 17:30, said:

If she doesn't understand that bridge takes priority, the marriage is already in trouble.

True for A, B, C and E

[mycroft]

I still have the choice to answer. If I'm in a meeting with my boss, I won't (well, there are times when it would be "can I take this call - there's a possible emergency?") If I'm in the bathroom, I won't. If I'm in a movie theatre, I won't. If I'm at the opera, I won't.

But as I said, in our family, nobody calls (which is why it might be an emergency). And definitely if she did, she would have texted it first, so if I do notice it, I'll walk away after the hand and check what the issue is.

If it really was such an emergency, she would know to call the bridge club and have the TD get me - because yes, she understands how the game works.

Having said that, "I'm not always available" was a pre-condition for me getting the phone, in exchange for "emails are too slow, I need to be able to text you." So - yeah.

No, nobody has a right to my time - or at least, not a "right now" to my time - not even family. I might pay a high price for my decision; but it is *my* decision, not theirs. Anyone trying to convince me otherwise is even more selfish than I am - but it won't work.

[blackshoe]

The concept that because one owns a cell phone not answering said phone when it rings is rude is absurd.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2021-June-16, 09:29, said:

Having said that, "I'm not always available" was a pre-condition for me getting the phone, in exchange for "emails are too slow, I need to be able to text you." So - yeah.

It's somewhat academic, because nowadays if they can text you, they can also leave a voice message (which is another way of stealing your time versus theirs) or internet voice call you, or video call you come to that (which is even less welcome in the bathroom). I imagine that in a not too distant future, calling a phone number will seem as quaint as sending an SMS or writing a letter.

[jillybean]

 pran, on 2021-June-16, 01:14, said:

I remember a time when sounding a mobile telephone during a Bridge competition automatically resulted in a fine of US$100 (was it?).

I have never heard of this, I assume the fines increased in relation to the gravity of the offence.
US$500 for failing to have a completed CC
US$1000 failing to stop after a skip bid
US$10000 for use of UI

[pilowsky]

 jillybean, on 2021-June-16, 15:54, said:

I have never heard of this, I assume the fines increased in relation to the gravity of the offence.
US$500 for failing to have a completed CC
US$1000 failing to stop after a skip bid
US$10000 for use of UI

US$100000 for making frivolous posts?

[jillybean]

 pilowsky, on 2021-June-16, 16:35, said:

US$100000 for making frivolous posts?

Have you heard of a player getting a monetary fine for a cell phone ringing?

[blackshoe]

Some years ago, a woman who was involved in a mentoring program here called me in connection with said program about 15 minutes into a regularly scheduled club game. Twice. The first time the phone rang, I reached in my pocket and dismissed the call. Thirty seconds later, the phone rang again. The director fined me half a board for each call. She was in California and "didn't realize", she said later, that it was three hours later in New York. :-( My fault, I should have turned the damn thing off before the game started. But what really frosted me was that over the next couple of weeks several other peoples' phones rang, and they were not penalized. Different director (the first one was the club owner, the other one another director he hired to run his games - he just happened to be there the day mine rang. I mentioned to the owner that a little consistency in these things would be nice. I don't know whether he talked to the other director. I do know that she didn't change her ways. I don't think I've ever seen her give a PP. I did see her throw a guy out for thirty days — he was noisily berating another player, his partner I think, and when she tried to quiet him down, he lit into her. Boom. Out the door. Can't blame her, I'd have done the same.

As far as "when the phone rings you must answer it" I agree with those who say this is nonsense.

Anyway, never heard of monetary fines for phones ringing in bridge in the US.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2021-June-16, 21:01, said:

Some years ago, a woman who was involved in a mentoring program here called me in connection with said program about 15 minutes into a regularly scheduled club game. Twice. The first time the phone rang, I reached in my pocket and dismissed the call. Thirty seconds later, the phone rang again. The director fined me half a board for each call. She was in California and "didn't realize", she said later, that it was three hours later in New York. :-( My fault, I should have turned the damn thing off before the game started. But what really frosted me was that over the next couple of weeks several other peoples' phones rang, and they were not penalized. Different director (the first one was the club owner, the other one another director he hired to run his games - he just happened to be there the day mine rang. I mentioned to the owner that a little consistency in these things would be nice. I don't know whether he talked to the other director. I do know that she didn't change her ways. I don't think I've ever seen her give a PP. I did see her throw a guy out for thirty days — he was noisily berating another player, his partner I think, and when she tried to quiet him down, he lit into her. Boom. Out the door. Can't blame her, I'd have done the same.

As far as "when the phone rings you must answer it" I agree with those who say this is nonsense.

Anyway, never heard of monetary fines for phones ringing in bridge in the US.

I know that I have seen it announced in some conditions of contest at a time when cell phones were new and scarce (decades ago). I have no idea if it was ever executed.

[pilowsky]

On the plus side, at least we don't get penalised if we skip the post-tournament press conference.
Something I've been guilty of more than once.