[timouthy]

In addition to playing tourneys with a few regular partners, I volunteer to sub in tournaments on BBO. I would say I have subbed in them hundreds of times there. I "know" many of the tourney directors and like almost all of them. On August 19th I subbed in a tourney. The score when I came on board was ~ 30%. I came in on hand 5 and played through hand 13. At this point I was "removed" from the table without any warning and I was even removed from BBO. When I was "booted", the score was now ~ 65%. I almost never have been disconnected from BBO, but when I have been, I log back in and my seat is still there waiting for me. I immediately logged back in and I was not placed back in my seat this time. Suspicious! Later I looked at the BBO hand records and noticed that a completely new person had taken my place! Most significantly though was our side took first place and all of the master points were given to the person who played the first four hands!!!
I was astonished because we subs have been told numerous times by directors that the master points will be given to the person who has played more than half of the hands. And this is what I have repeatedly experienced when I have subbed, every single time. If I play half the hands, or more hands than anyone else, the master points have gone to me. I immediately talked to directors and they were as astonished as I was, and they told me to contact BBO customer support which is acbl@bridgebase.com

I first heard back from Sanya De Almeida who said that if the original player returns and finishes the tourney, they get the master points
Period. Nothing more, because I at that point assumed the original played returned. Then I went and looked at the tourney #58849. The original player did not return! A new person, bbo name of heehaw, played last three hands.

I now press on and a new person took over named Diana Serban. This time I stated that the original person did not return, so that made it ridiculous to assign the master points to him. Incredibly she stated that he did return, if only briefly, and therefore justifies him getting the points!!! Yet if you go and look, the scoring table has no record of him being there. Furthermore my partner who had been there the whole tourney, bbo name kalv1, stated to me personally that the original player never returned!! Serban also expressed "shock" when I told her about the MP assigning rules told to me by multiple tourney directors, about playing the majority of the tourney. And the bbo directors expressed shock to me when I told them this story about how I was "treated" by whoever assigned the MPs. I told Serban their policy is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the ACBL.

You can play 4 hands in an 18 hand tourney, finish with a score of 30% and get 1.5 master points, go figure!!

[jillybean]

Welcome back.
Sorry to hear these tournaments are still causing you grief.
I can't help with any of the issues but I am interested to know what you do with the Masterpoints?

[pescetom]

It is not the first time that this egregious trick to obtain a good score at the expense of subs has been reported here, can BBO really devise no remedy?

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2024-August-22, 15:02, said:

It is not the first time that this egregious trick to obtain a good score at the expense of subs has been reported here, can BBO really devise no remedy?

The reason it's not the first time is that it was the same OP both times.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-August-22, 15:19, said:

The reason it's not the first time is that it was the same OP both times.

Didn't spot that, thanks.

The first time round, you and I both suggested ways to fairly split the MP between the Substitute and the subbed player (although my post is no longer there: I suggested the MP accrued by each player to be separately totalled rather than just splitting an aggregate total as you suggested). We received no reply, but maybe it happened?

[diana_eva]

pescetom, on 2024-August-23, 07:09, said:

Didn't spot that, thanks.

The first time round, you and I both suggested ways to fairly split the MP between the Substitute and the subbed player (although my post is no longer there: I suggested the MP accrued by each player to be separately totalled rather than just splitting an aggregate total as you suggested). We received no reply, but maybe it happened?

No, there have been no changes. Currently, there are no plans to perform complex calculations to split masterpoints between the original player and the substitute. The existing rule states that "if the original player manages to return, they are allowed to regain their seat and complete the game." We try to keep things straightforward and avoid exceptions whenever possible.

However, we are planning a small adjustment in the next server upgrade. This update will prevent the original player from regaining their seat during the final board. This means that if a substitute starts playing the last board they will be able to finish the game and, if they played more than half of the tournament, retain the results.

In situations where the original player disconnects early (e.g., around board 3) and returns later (e.g., around board 10), they will still be able to resume and keep their results. Instances where substitutes achieve exceptional results are quite rare. Typically, the original paying player keeps trying to reconnect and is frustrated by the experience, rather than attempting to misuse the system.

The concern about substitutes being exceptionally skilled players who dramatically boost results while the original player benefits without effort is highly unlikely and occurs extremely infrequently. Even in cases involving experienced substitutes like Tim, such scenarios might happen once or twice a year.

[timouthy]

Diana wrote "In situations where the original player disconnects early (e.g., around board 3) and returns later (e.g., around board 10), they will still be able to resume and keep their results. Instances where substitutes achieve exceptional results are quite rare. Typically, the original paying player keeps trying to reconnect and is frustrated by the experience, rather than attempting to misuse the system."

Are you saying you have evidence that the original player tried to reconnect? Or are you speculating that they tried? Because otherwise this part of your a passage is meaningless or aspirational or both and conveniently misses my basic point. Why is it so hard for you administrators to address the most important part of this, which is how a person who played 30% for 3 hands gets 1.5 master points?

[barmar]

timouthy, on 2024-August-23, 10:58, said:

Diana wrote "In situations where the original player disconnects early (e.g., around board 3) and returns later (e.g., around board 10), they will still be able to resume and keep their results. Instances where substitutes achieve exceptional results are quite rare. Typically, the original paying player keeps trying to reconnect and is frustrated by the experience, rather than attempting to misuse the system."

Are you saying you have evidence that the original player tried to reconnect? Or are you speculating that they tried? Because otherwise this part of your a passage is meaningless or aspirational or both and conveniently misses my basic point.

I don't know if we've gathered hard statistics, rather than just anecdotal evidence from CS reports. It's hard for us to tell what's happening with users who don't reconnect -- we can't tell whether they aren't trying or they're trying and failing.

In my personal experience, people who get disconnected usually get put back in their seat on the next board. I've rarely seen a sub stay for more than one board.

Quote

Why is it so hard for you administrators to address the most important part of this, which is how a person who played 30% for 3 hands gets 1.5 master points?

The default should be that the person who paid for the tournament gets the points. We only override this default if they don't finish the tourney, then we give the points to the one who played the most boards.

If you're interested in getting points, you should pay to play, not sign up as a sub. Any points you get as a sub should be considered icing on the cake, not something you should expect. You shouldn't expect to play more than a board or two.

[timouthy]

Barmar, Barmar. Barmar:

"The default should be that the person who paid for the tournament gets the points. We only override this default if they don't finish the tourney, then we give the points to the one who played the most boards". Then why wasn't that done in this case? And why why why do you not address this?


"If you're interested in getting points, you should pay to play, not sign up as a sub. Any points you get as a sub should be considered icing on the cake, not something you should expect. You shouldn't expect to play more than a board or two".

What an embarrassment to Bridge Base you are with statements like that. What a crazy assumption you make. I pay and have paid for tourneys on your site for years. And I have accumulated master points both as paying participant and as a sub on your site for years. I pay your salary! And you know quite well that if you didn't award subs the master points, the quality of subs would go right into the toilet.

[pescetom]

IIRC you said in your first thread that you were asking ACBL about this. What did they have to say?

[diana_eva]

pescetom, on 2024-August-24, 02:27, said:

IIRC you said in your first thread that you were asking ACBL about this. What did they have to say?

They said, roughly, that clubs are free to do their subs policy in any way they see fit. We should all take a deep breath and remember we run club level games available 3 times per hour all day.

[diana_eva]

timouthy, on 2024-August-23, 20:16, said:

And you know quite well that if you didn't award subs the master points, the quality of subs would go right into the toilet.

Robots don't expect masterpoints, don't forget what has passed and are better than the average player. Most clubs have switched to using robots as substitutes for these reasons.

We do prefer human subs and so do the other players, however if it so happens the quality goes down the toilet there are always alternatives. Rude subs are also not welcome, even if they play like gods.

[diana_eva]

timouthy, on 2024-August-23, 10:58, said:

Are you saying you have evidence that the original player tried to reconnect?

Yes. I am saying, just like I mentioned in our very numerous back and forth emails in support that we checked what happened, and we told you what happened.

We checked the tourney history, and you can also see that there were multiple subs involved, which typically happens when the original player comes back (this removes substitute #1 and gives the seat back to the player). Our ACBL TDs dont replace substitute 1 with substitute 2 just because they notice they did too well and want to make sure they wont get any points.

Leaving all this aside, I understand it can be frustrating to do well and see someone else reap the results. We are thinking of some way to reward frequent subs, but it will not be with masterpoints -- rather some way to keep track of how many times someone subbed in one of our games, and offer a free entry every X subs.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2024-August-24, 07:15

[timouthy]

Please answer me a very simple question then: Why does the tourney #58849 on August 19th then not show that the original player is back in the game, nor did my partner kalv1 ever see him come back?

[timouthy]

pescetom, on 2024-August-24, 02:27, said:

IIRC you said in your first thread that you were asking ACBL about this. What did they have to say?

I don't know what IIRC is but I have contacted ACBL. They have acknowledged my message and we will be discussing on Monday.

[Aceotto]

The points are not impotent it is rude to be disconnected when I’m replaced

[pescetom]

timouthy, on 2024-August-24, 10:44, said:

I don't know what IIRC is

Just a space saving acronym from usenet days, "If I Recall Correctly"