[zielona]

I wonder if laws of online bridge, once written, will cover all aspects of player substitutions. At present TD's use their own imagination for the sake of fairness and often also their own convenience.

This happened last Sunday:

Clocked individual tourney. 2 boards per round. Non playing TD. Free tourney for everyone.
First board in the second last round. All on time, quick bidding and quick first few tricks.
Contract: 3NT.
With 6 tricks completed the declarer loses connection, perhaps quits.
Balance of tricks: 4 for opps, 2 for the declarer.
Opps still hold one ace. There is no line of play possible that would not give opps one more trick. No finesses necessary. No guesses involved.
Obvious result: down one.
TD's decision after bringing in a sub: A++.
TD's explanation: It is impossible for the sub to finish the board with 6 tricks gone. 3 Imps and no discussion please.

I accept that it is often awkward for a sub to land at the table in the middle of the play. I've been many times in that situation, including once when the contract was 7 of something and opps were already in possession of 9 tricks. Frustrating? Yes, it may be. But for the sake of fairness, no adjustments.

As a TD, on occasions I adjust the board before making a substitution.

So what is fair? What should the TD do, given limited time he/she has for thinking? Is nothing the best answer perhaps?

Regards,

zielona

[helene_t]

I agree that it's usually best to adjust the board before making a substitution. If down one is "obvious" it should be adjusted to down one, of course, but it may not be that easy for a bussy TD to see.

How could it be avg+ for declarer? Did I read that correctly? This means avg- for opps who are not at fault. I think it should be adjusted to ave if the TD can't decide what normal play would have lead to.

[jillybean]

If there was an obvious result it should be adjusted to such but that debate is going on in another thread

The real problem here is that players can leave a tournament part way through a board without any consequences. The automatic ban ratio for tournaments abandoned/played is far too high imho. The TD's cant blacklist them all and if they do the ban lists fail consistently.

People very very rarely leave pay tournaments so perhaps the problem isnt so apparent with the powers that be, from a free TD perspective the problem is huge.

I want to restrict my tournaments to players who consistently complete tournaments and will just sit down, play a few hands of bridge and not abuse anyone. Wouldnt it be a much better experience for everyone if hosts of tournaments and tables could set filters to restrict the number of habitual deserters, rude people (#of abuse complaints) and those with consistently unreliable connections.
Let all these people play together, let new players earn their privileges on BBO.

[inquiry]

Anyone who abandons too many tourmanents (for good reason or bad) will have their tournament priviledges suspended for a period of time. They can still play in team games and main room, and probably in pay tournaments, if they pay. I am not sure if they can substitute in tournaments.

[jillybean]

I don’t think the suspensions have had any noticeable effect on the number of players deserting tournaments.

[inquiry]

jillybean2, on Feb 21 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

I don’t think the suspensions have had any noticeable effect on the number of players deserting tournaments.

That is because they are only for one week. They can come back after that and redo it and redo it and redo it. There should be a graded scale...

One week for offenses one through like three or four,
then two weeks, then three weeks, etc. for repeated ban's. Of course that might be a nightmare to program and track.

[zielona]

Quote

(helene_t)
How could it be avg+ for declarer? Did I read that correctly? This means avg- for opps who are not at fault.

A++ is average plus for both sides. Doesn't matter if it's average minus or plus really, neither is a correct score.

Quote

(jillybean2)
If there was an obvious result it should be adjusted to such but that debate is going on in another thread 

Quote

(jillybean2)
The real problem here is that players can leave a tournament part way through a board without any consequences.

My dillema was different though.

The board was not unfinished. It was made unfinished by the TD. TD thought it wasn't nice towards the sub to let him continue so he terminated the board with the artificial A++ score. TD valued the wellbeing of the substitute player above the (likely) ambitions of the existing players.

Neither I was trying to re-activate many discussions about what could possibly be done to discourage purposeful quitting of BBO tournaments. It's not that accept runners. It's that half of the red's are due to genuine disconnections and not due to running.

My dillema was: Should the TD interfere in the result when a substitute player is brought in in the middle of the play. And if so, how?

[jillybean]

zielona, on Feb 23 2007, 07:39 PM, said:

My dillema was: Should the TD interfere in the result when a substitute player is brought in in the middle of the play. And if so, how?

Yes. If it is impossible within the time to tell the sub how the play has progressed, the TD should review the board and and if there is an obvious line of play, finesse taken, suit set up etc then the board should be adjusted accordingly. If there is no obvious line of play and the board cant be completed normaly I adjust to A+ for the non-offending side and A= for the pair that needed a sub.

In indys I usualy just put the sub in and leave it at that, only in a pairs game do I take the time to review the board.

All of this IMHO of course as I said earlier this is being discussed in another thread
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=17970

[hotShot]

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 06:00 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 21 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

I don’t think the suspensions have had any noticeable effect on the number of players deserting tournaments.

That is because they are only for one week. They can come back after that and redo it and redo it and redo it. There should be a graded scale...

One week for offenses one through like three or four,
then two weeks, then three weeks, etc. for repeated ban's. Of course that might be a nightmare to program and track.

Thinking of all the other things BBO keeps track on, this would be simple, i bet the ban's are already in a database, adding a ban counter would be simple.