[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]

uday, on Sep 16 2004, 11:28 PM, said:

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]

jtfanclub, on Sep 17 2004, 01:07 AM, said:

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

[luke warm]

uday has (as, it seems, usual) hit on the perfect solution... have the software NOT give a 'black mark' to one who has subbed then been subbed out, unless TD decides otherwise

the seat DOES belong to the person who started (in a pairs), regardless of the TDs who say otherwise... hosting/directing a tourney isn't easy, if it was i'd do it myself... this has nothing whatsoever to do with those who play in a tourney... if ben and i decide to play in a tourney, we do so with the express intent of playing *together* and of finishing the tourney together.. if i get disconnected, have to reboot, and come back, i fully expect my seat back.. more importantly, BEN expects me to have my seat back

sure subs are important to your tourneys, but all you have to do is make it known that subs, while appreciated, are just that - substitutes for a player who left due to an emergency or for reasons beyond his control... when/if he returns, THE SEAT IS HIS...

i can't for the life of me understand why this is even an issue... i know there's no correlation between this and r/l, but imagine for a moment there was... imagine fred and brad in a tourney.. now say, God forbid, brad got sick (maybe something he ate) and had to leave... further imagine the tourney allowed subs, and i sat down (easy fred, i'll never bid NT )

fred, brad, AND i would fully expect brad to be reseated when he returned... anything else is illogical

one other thing.. i've read where some are afraid they won't get subs if this is the rule... how in the world can that be true? a sub, by definition, doesn't want to play in a full tourney... Lord knows there are enough tourneys where they *can* play a full one if they want... no, this is simply (it seems to me) an effort to cater to substitutes rather than partnerships... as i said on two other occasions, subs always left when the regular partner returned, on the zone.. there were NEVER any problems... this is an attitude or cultural problem, and easily rectified

[jtfanclub]

Gerardo, on Sep 17 2004, 08:24 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 17 2004, 01:07 AM, said:

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

OK, can I just sub you both out, then? I'd love to be able to sub in an experienced pair rather than individual subs.

Last tourney I ran allowing reinstatement, I had two people get disconnected, I got subs, they came back, I subbed them back in, then they got disconnected again. Except I was now out of subs. In one case, I actually had to take an entire round and pitch it for one pair, because we couldn't get a sub in time. Think that was fair for them? They came to play, not wait around for almost half an hour trying to find a second sub for a person who had been disconnected once before.

Until the rules force me to do otherwise, I will no longer reinstate players who leave for any reason. This will be clearly stated in the description of the tourney. I don't really care that it isn't your fault that you were disconnected. It's not (censored)'s fault that he takes 10 minutes per board, either, but he shouldn't be playing my tourney either.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Sep 17 2004, 08:50 PM, said:

Until the rules force me to do otherwise, I will no longer reinstate players who leave for any reason. This will be clearly stated in the description of the tourney. I don't really care that it isn't your fault that you were disconnected. It's not (censored)'s fault that he takes 10 minutes per board, either, but he shouldn't be playing my tourney either.

i swear, jt... so far in 2 threads on different subjects, this is the gist of what i've gotten from you

"it's my tourney, if i say it starts at 8 and i want to start at 8:10, for reasons i decide are good enough, i'll do it... if you don't like it go elsewhere"

and

"it's my tourney, i don't care if you entered to play with a certain partner, if he gets booted he can't come back in, period... and i do NOT care the reason he was booted... as i said, it's MY tourney, if you don't like it go elsewhere"

[TimG]

luke warm, on Sep 17 2004, 02:22 PM, said:

i swear, jt... so far in 2 threads on different subjects, this is the gist of what i've gotten from you

"it's my tourney, if i say it starts at 8 and i want to start at 8:10, for reasons i decide are good enough, i'll do it... if you don't like it go elsewhere"

and

"it's my tourney, i don't care if you entered to play with a certain partner, if he gets booted he can't come back in, period... and i do NOT care the reason he was booted... as i said, it's MY tourney, if you don't like it go elsewhere"

That seems to be the gist. But, it's just fine with me. The option to play elsewhere is available and I can exercise that right. Just as JT can run his tournaments the way he wants to run them.

[luke warm]

yeah, yeah, i know... but imagine doing that in r/l, using the hypothetical i gave earlier

[skorchev]

At my tourneys if someone is disconnected and when log on want to be replaced I first ask the sub and if he is ok I replace the regular player. Very interesting is that every sub which I ask say "OK, replace me", nobody want to stay.


Stefan

[luke warm]

which is exactly the attitude i'd expect... nothing else makes much sense

[inquiry]

Well,

I have one more thought on this subject. The BBO has instituted automated method for catching and blocking people who start and don't finish tournments. The vast majority of these people are not rude tournment jumpers (well not anymore), but rahter people with poor connections, and thus can't stay connected to the event.

The reason this was done was save our haggerred tournment directors. They were too busy hunting subs, that they had no time for anything else. If we allow disconnected people back in (and I am not saying we should or should not here), then the worse offenders can disconnect, reconnect, disconnect, reconnnect and if they are connected when the evet ends, be able to sign up for tournment after tournment. This, in effect will create double, triple, quadruple work for the directors (not only finding sub once for these people, but hen subbing them in and finding new replacements, etc, plus, the "offendors" (i don't mean they do this on purpose) are not getting zapped and so they end up in more tournemnts causing more problems.

So proposal. If you are subbed for in a tourment, that counts as a black mark.. getting back in and being there at the end does not erase it... (and maybe if you in and out twice in one event, that should be two black marks?).

Just my thoughts...

Ben

[luke warm]

things sure seem more complicated here, but the reason probably lies in the sheer number of tourneys going on... back in the old days, the zone had one tourney on 3 or 4 nites a week.. big difference there... there was never a shortage of subs, so i guess that's one difference...

i still think that if a p'ship signs up to play in a tourney, they do so with the intent of playing together... to deny one or the other this opportunity, based on what usually are conditions beyond their control, seems wrong on the face of it

it just seems inconceivable that a person would sub in a tourney and NOT expect to go back in the sub pool when the partner returns... it would never enter my mind to do anything but that

[lipi]

I have lots to say, but most of them were already said before me... but this interface is so nice I just can't stand using it...

I'm completely in favor of "resubbing", but only if the program doesn't penalize the sub, and only if the sub agrees to be resubbed. Maybe this is because I've twice been subbed out of a tourney without even being disconnected and the director would not put me back, wouldn't even ask p or the sub. Of course both the director and my p denied having me subbed, so it was really strange.

Of course as Skorchev pointed out a sub would never want to stay when asked to leave (or would soon get on my enemy list )... so after all asking is not much better than taking action without asking first .

On the other hand I think that "subbing" should be considered as an opportunity to help other people (while you also enjey it), and not an opportunity to get into a tourney you just missed on the expense of the first one to get disconnected. This is more like behaving as a scavenger. This is again in support of resubbing after a polite ask.

What more, I'd suggest that being resubbed should not increase, but decrease your black marks as a compensation of your efforts. Maybe even simple subs could get this type of present. You screw up a tourney and then help one out to get in balance (with your conscience too ). What do you think?

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Sep 17 2004, 02:22 PM, said:

"it's my tourney, if i say it starts at 8 and i want to start at 8:10, for reasons i decide are good enough, i'll do it... if you don't like it go elsewhere"

and

"it's my tourney, i don't care if you entered to play with a certain partner, if he gets booted he can't come back in, period... and i do NOT care the reason he was booted... as i said, it's MY tourney, if you don't like it go elsewhere"

Nope. My policy on both is very simple:

When I create a tournament, I create a description. In that decription are a set of rules. Those include Imps vs. MPs, the expected length of time of the tournament and whether I allow reinstatement. If you join up for my tourney, I expect you to follow my rules.

I am rather shocked by the people who think that they can join my tourney and change the rules any time they'd like to the detriment of the other 50+ tables. This includes slow playing, rudeness, and refusing to alert, as well as the ones mentioned above.

If you join my tournament with the intent of following the rules, you'll have a lot of fun. If I say 'allow 70 minutes' and I start 5 minutes late, you can think 'that's OK, he just plans to not add any time during the rounds' and you'd be right. If you're winning the tourney and an opponent freezes and I tell you to wait a moment, you can think 'OK, he'll make sure if possible that I won't be forced into an A+" and you'd be right.

But every tourney, I get one or two people who want to ruin it for everybody else. They whine and complain every time I add a minute, even though we're on schedule. They demand extra time when their partner is disconnect or slow, even when we're not. And, of course, they demand to be reinstated if they're gone for a while. It's like there's 199 people playing bridge and one person playing solitaire.

I know my set-time policy is popular with most people. I also know, and can see on the poll, that people in general don't mind if I eliminate reinstatement. I'm not going to change it for the one or two malcontents.

Sorry.

[luke warm]

that's me, mr. malcontent...

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Sep 17 2004, 08:49 PM, said:

that's me, mr. malcontent...

I doubt you've played in any of my tourneys. If you have, you've followed the rules.

Which certainly does not make you a malcontent.

[jdulmage]

I would ask the sub if he wants to continue playing, he said "yes" then too bad, if he say "no" then I bring back disconnected partner.

That would be the same as if you were playing in a real life tournament, you were dummy, had someone else push your hands for you, got an emergency phone call, came back 5 minutes later and was told "sorry, the guy pushing your cards is in now"

Same thing.

[rona_]

1. Unfair to penalise subs for giving their seat back to the original player.

2. Unfair to expect a player to play most of the tournament with a sub.

Tough one. If you get rid of the black mark against a sub who gives his seat back, you might have a lot of subs who disconnect if they don't like their partner, which will create more problems for the TD.

Personally I would rather not play in a tournament if my partner cannot come back. Vicious circle.

I would like to have a choice...play with a sub for the rest of the tournament whether my partner returns or not, or leave the tournament entirely. Is that possible or does that complicate life further for the TD? At this point, this is the only thing that makes sense to me.