Right or Wrong thing to do?

[jtfanclub]

Person becomes disconnected.

I wait 5 minutes, then bring in a sub.

Later the same hand, person reconnects, asks to be reinstated.

Ask the partner, says it is a regular partnership, wishes the person reinstated.

I thank the sub, and at the end of the hand, sub back in the disconnected person.

 

Substitute is understandably upset.

[helium]

Hi.

i think we have some good unwritthen rules about that on bbo:

We dont replace subs!!!!

 

We are TOTALLY depended of our subs, and i think we whould loose many of them if we start to let diconected players back in after inviting a sub.

So i think its best not to let the disconected player inn again, but whait as loong as possible before inviting a sub.

 

 

 

 

kenneth

[Gerardo]

In that situation, I'd ask the sub. If he says "No", I say "Sorry" to disconnected and partner. They alternative is to say "Sorry" directly.

OTOH, I think you should sub ONLY by partner's (or own) request. If this causes hands not played, then A+/A-. You don't have this problem then, sub is to stay.

Conversely, if you sub my p without asking me, I'll request you to put my p back.

[guggie]

Waiting until people ask for their partner to be subbed can cause considerable delay.

If I have nothing else to do and I see one person red I go to the table, look at the time resting, ask if a sub is needed, and if so try to match as suitable a sub as possible.

If it is terrible busy and half of the tournament is disconnecting I sub everything red in sight without any questions asked or any matching done.

Most of the time I compromise something between these extremes.

I only sub someone back if the sub is becoming red, of if I know the sub well and can ask him/her if its ok.

[inquiry]

Until (and unless) sub's who join and then are replaced by the director do not count against the "disconnection" percentage you should not sub them out to let the original player return. Remember, too many tournments not finished and the software bans you automatically. So this subbing them in and out can hurt them considerably.

 

ben

 

PS, i know several people have asked that subs not be counted in the failure to finish tounments, not sure if that has been implimented, i think not.

[TimG]

This seems an easy one for me: let the original player back into the game.

[epeeist]

For pay tournaments, replacing subs seems fine. I've subbed in e.g. ACBL tournaments, and not been annoyed when I was replaced. The "bargain" is, as a sub I don't pay the $1 fee, and can still earn points if I do well, but will be replaced if the original player returns. Seems fair to me. However, I am concerned if, as inquiry notes, I am treated as having "quit" a tournament if I am replaced -- that seems wholly unfair.

 

For free tournaments, replacing subs seems unfair, UNLESS it is made explicitly clear that subs will be kicked out when and if the original player returns. Of course, I and I am sure many others, would refuse to sub in such tournaments, so it seems self-defeating to have such a policy. And I say that even though I have upon occasion had a really, really annoying sub become my partner and would prefer my original one to return... :lol:

 

Unless, of course, it was a "special" type of tournament which most could not normally enter, e.g. one with lots of "stars" or something, then I'm sure people would be clamouring to sub even if they might be kicked out again at short notice.

 

On an unrelated note, I think many people would be willing to sub more often if they knew what stage the tournament was at. I think jtfanclub, in some of his requests for subs, has explicitly stated e.g. that the tournament was expected to end by 3 p.m. or there were x rounds left, or the like, which makes it a lot more attractive to potential subs who may have another tournament coming up or other commitments.

[Rebound]

I second the excellent notion that when requesting subs, the rnds/hands remaining should be mentioned. TD's who are concerned they may not get subs if they admit there's only one round left should consider those who may not have much time and are unwilling to sub unless the tournament or team game is near completion. I, for one, also sympathize with the pain of having your partner go red just before the last round and am willing to sub in such situations anytime I'm not already playing.

 

Back to the topic, I recently saw a sub volunteer to give up his seat for a returning partner and the TD refused. To me, that was rediculous. However, I believe subs should not be replaced without their consent.

[hallway]

Without SUBS my life would be a nightmare - I love SUBS

 

Under no circumstances would I sub out a SUB, unless the SUB themselves specifically asked me to do so.

 

I do get offers to sub for 2 or 3 hands in which case if the orginal player is back online I will let them know they can be returned. The SUB and the SUB alone decides when the exchange will take place.

 

As Ben pointed out being subbed IN then subbed OUT counts as a disconnect . No power on earth would make me so penalise a SUB . The SUB is making it possible for me to see the tournament through to a conclusion - the disconnected player (even if the reason for the disconnect is no fault of theirs) put the tournament in jeopardy.

 

(besides which as I have pointed out to more than one whining because I will not kick out the person who filled in for them - the chances are if their connection is already unstable they may disconnect again before the end and THEN they will have 2 disconnects against their name and may well find themselves BANNED for a week - that usually elicits an "OH !! thank you I had better just Kib then " ) - every cloud as a silver lining :-))

[luke warm]

i agree with tim... if i enter a tourney, it's with the intention of playing with *that* partner... now if something happens, it happens... however, it seems wrong for a regular partnership to suffer because of puter or net problems

 

just tell the sub, thanks so much for subbing, his regular p has returned.. btw, i used to play in tourneys on the zone... there were as many connection problems there as here, but if a sub had to enter he always knew it was only until the regular partner returned... he was thanked and asked to remain available should he be needed again

 

i didn't know about the black mark for replacing a sub, that needs to be addressed... seems totally wrong

[pclayton]

I didn't enter this hypothetical tournament with a regular partner to play with an unknown person for the remaining 5/6th of the boards.

 

Sometimes I sub and I fully expect to be replaced by the person who got disced. The reason I occasionally sub is to play a few hands, especially when I can't commit the time to play in the whole tourney.

 

If I paid for the tourney, I feel even more strongly about this. No way should I have to play a balance of a tourney I've paid for with a stranger. Give me a break already! :)

 

I think directors should look at this through the eyes of the partner of the disced person, and not the sub.

[hallway]

To those of you who feel that having entered a PAIRS event that you have the right to only play with your chosen partner and that a SUB should be prepared to be penalised by being subbed out at yours and your partners convenience I would suggest you arrange to have your own SUB on standby. !!

 

Just message the TD - you can sub in xxxx if either I or my partner disconnect and as soon as we come back (if and when we do) you can sub xxxx out again.

 

The TD will be happy , the Sub presumably will be happy and you and your partner will be happy !!

 

Why is it the TD's (those doing the work !) who are always held to account - isn't it time the Players took upon themselves a little of the responsibility

[luke warm]

i honestly don't understand that attitude... if i enter a PAIRS event, it's to play with my partner... i can't agree more with phil on this... a substitute should know ahead of time that he's subbing because something happened, and when whatever happened is rectified, his services won't be needed until *next* time

 

exactly what do you mean about players taking on a little responsibility? you mean NOT to lose connection? not to have power problems?

 

we never had an ounce of problems on the zone doing it this way, why is it so difficult here? the work involved should be no more or less than normal, this seems a matter of making it known that subbing is something that's done as needed, and when the need vanishes so does the sub...

 

after all, they aren't subbing in order to play a full tourney anyway, else they'd have entered the tourney

[mink]

I have sympathy for both arguments, pro and contra subbing subs. However, in the current environment, tds do not have really a choice, even if there was no penalty for being subbed out:

 

If most tds sub out subs, many subs would not sub again. Often I sub for a tourney just started or with quite a number of boards yet to be played, and I expect to be allowed to play all them if chosen.

 

And even more important: If a player has encountered a connection problem once, it is likely that it will happen again. Nobody will convince me to take the chance of being forced to sub again.

 

 

On the other hand, there is another possible solution for the problem of missing players that I would prefer: players with a missing partner should have the option of either getting a sub themselves or quitting the tourney, thereby generating a sitout table. As soon as this happens to another pair, the problem is solved, and the tourney has one table less. If there are missing players at the time of the round switch, the pairs involved could be matched against each other or against the sitout pair. Cards should not be shown until there are 4 active players at the table. This would make it possible for the software to reseat remaining pairs if a player with a missing partner decides to quit short after the start of a round.

 

Karl

[epeeist]

My previous post was lengthy, so I'll distill it down:

 

TDs WHO CALL FOR SUBS SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THEIR POLICY ON RESUBBING.

 

That should satisfy everyone, regardless of their opinion.

 

EDIT: As inquiry's next post points out, this would still be unfair because a player who was public-spirited enough to sub frequently and got resubbed, could get banned for failure to finish tournaments. So how about:

 

TDs WHO CALL FOR SUBS SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THAT SUBBING IN THEIR TOURNAMENTS MAY RESULT IN BEING BANNED FOR A WEEK FROM BBO TOURNAMENTS.

 

That should help get lots of subs... :lol:

 

As my sarcasm points out, I agree with e.g. inquiry and BILmanager's points of view.

[inquiry]

My previous post was lengthy, so I'll distill it down:

 

TDs WHO CALL FOR SUBS SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THEIR POLICY ON RESUBBING.

 

That should satisfy everyone, regardless of their opinion.

Doesn't satisfy me. i am for letting origiinal player return if and only if the sub being replaced doens;t count as a tournament abandoment. If someone subbed into two or three tourneys and then got subbed out, they could end up banned by the software for a week from all tournments.... and they don;t even know the risk.

 

ben

[Gerardo]

For those who doesn't want to play with a sub, like I usually do: refuse the sub, and WAIT, pay the penalty if you can't finish hands because of that.

If you agree on the subbing, then seat belongs to the sub, not to your partner anymore. Nor to you.

 

For TDs:

 

I certainly expect to be asked about subbing my partner. The seat still belongs to him/her, not to you. I don't care about my opps, they get A+ as they should, I don't care about you as much as I care for my (hopefully temporarily) missing partner.

No discussions about this :lol: Less work (IMO) too. One call to note the situation, one for doing the subbing IF REQUESTED, one for adjusting IF NEEDED (not needed if still missing at the end of round).

Furthermore, it puts the decision on the PLAYERS, where they belong IMO.

Take your poison B)

 

Now, I didn't direct in a (long) while (I did it at the beginning, till they were enough directors and tourneys), but it worked back then. Don't see why it shouldn't now.

[spwdo]

hi,

 

 

Agree with G and ben, ask player, not opps if they like a partner to be subbed, risk of lateplay/unfinsched baord is for the player that doesnt take the sub.

 

In defence of tds some have very large tourneys and hardly anyone willing to help for free, so they sub quickly to avoid a lot of adjusts, but as always some do it this way, some do it that way, be chosy wich tourneys you play in avoids a lot of problems, when u dodnt like a td , dont sign up again.

 

 

Regards

 

Marc

[epeeist]

With the exception of paid tournaments which may involve issues of contract law, the seat "belongs" to noone. The TD can decide who does or doesn't play, subject only to the restrictions BBO may choose to impose.

 

If you don't like a TD who refuses to let your original p back in, don't play in their tournaments. But as inquiry reiterated, since resubbing may penalize subs by banning them from all tournaments, it is unfair.

 

Or as I put it in my previous edited post referring to those who practice replacing subs:

 

"TDs WHO CALL FOR SUBS SHOULD CLEARLY STATE THAT SUBBING IN THEIR TOURNAMENTS MAY RESULT IN BEING BANNED FOR A WEEK FROM BBO TOURNAMENTS.

 

That should help get lots of subs... :lol: "

[jtfanclub]

For those who doesn't want to play with a sub, like I usually do: refuse the sub, and WAIT, pay the penalty if you can't finish hands because of that.

If you agree on the subbing, then seat belongs to the sub, not to your partner anymore. Nor to you.

 

For TDs:

 

I certainly expect to be asked about subbing my partner. The seat still belongs to him/her, not to you. I don't care about my opps, they get A+ as they should, I don't care about you as much as I care for my (hopefully temporarily) missing partner.

No discussions about this :lol: Less work (IMO) too. One call to note the situation, one for doing the subbing IF REQUESTED, one for adjusting IF NEEDED (not needed if still missing at the end of round).

Furthermore, it puts the decision on the PLAYERS, where they belong IMO.

Take your poison B)

 

Now, I didn't direct in a (long) while (I did it at the beginning, till they were enough directors and tourneys), but it worked back then. Don't see why it shouldn't now.

Adjusting is not harmless.

 

Suppose there's an absolutely flat board- everybody passes it out. Except one table doesn't get there. By giving an A+, you've skewed it. Now half the people are getting a good board and half are getting a bad board. I do give them out, but they affect more than just the table. Besides, in order to win most tourneys you have to average over 60%. So you've just hurt your opponents by forcing them to take a 60%. It's lowered their chances of winning.

 

Furthermore, I don't have time to come by when the opps call, listen to you tell me to wait, come back when the opps call again, this time you say OK sub, three minutes later you complain because the opponents aren't playing fast enough, and then I have to adjust the table afterwards. And if you guys are halfway through the last board when I have to adjust it, then I have to sit double-dummy and figure out what the score would have been and then listen to you guys complain when I inevitably get it wrong. Or at least 'wrong'.

 

I have a very simple rule- if a pair is ahead in the round, I wait. If they're behind, I don't wait. I figure in 1 minute/board slack, so in my 9 board 3X3X7, if your partner can't start, I wait three minutes (until 18 minutes are left). Then he's subbed.

 

You no more have the right to take an A- than you have the right to bid 7NT when you're upset at your partner in order to punish him/her. This is against both the rules and spirit of bridge.

[uday]

Just FYI

 

The system currently records a "black mark" against a player who is subbed out of a T. This includes a sub who is then subbed out when the original player returns.

 

perhaps i should not do this.

[uday]

I am thinking a sub should not be penalized if he is subbed out, at least until the TD has the option of choosing whether to apply the mark

[jtfanclub]

I am thinking a sub should not be penalized if he is subbed out, at least until the TD has the option of choosing whether to apply the mark

I vote we don't penalize subs for ANYTHING. If he comes in, and it turns out his partner and he don't share any languages or systems, or the partner is so obnoxious that he drives out a second player, or it's the second board of a two hour tourney, or whatever the reason, if a sub leaves I'm down with it.

[TimG]

If I'm a substitute, I expect to play only while needed. I think the problem comes from the attitude (that I'm sensing here) that a substitute becomes a non-substitute as soon as he takes a seat at the table.

[Gerardo]

You no more have the right to take an A- than you have the right to bid 7NT when you're upset at your partner in order to punish him/her. This is against both the rules and spirit of bridge.

I have the right to play with the partner I registered in, if his/her failure to play are caused by circumstances beyond his/her control, which expectedly will be solved soon.

 

A- is the penalty written in the Law (A+ shouldn't touch your Average if > 60%, this is a BBO problem, which can be corrected if a player points at it, adjusting to whatever result is adequate. Not Lawful, pure hack, but should approximate the letter of the Law, ma

 

There is a Law which says you shouldn't fault to the rules purposedly, but this is NOT the case. I'm not expecting to fail to play, I choosing to play WITH MY PARTNER. That's player's decision IMO, not TD's.

 

I'm exercising a right over an unusual situation. NOT purposedly faulting to the rules.

 

Now, we disagree on that being player's right :rolleyes: