[spwdo]

hi,


asnwering ben, all unfinisched events are added up, u will see most tourneys nowadays NOT replacing subs for original partner.

Couple of reasons for this
1.Not fair to the sub helpings us out
2.often replaced players are kibitzing on the table when they want back in
3.often a connection of a replaced player will be same problem in future rounds
4.new software scans every unfinisched event


so we believe replaced players cannot reenter a tourney once they are replaced with someone else.

your second question, dont know if that woud count or not as finisch/unfinisched, doesnt apply to tourneys hosted from the majority of tds i know


spwdo

[inquiry]

spwdo, on Apr 28 2004, 10:23 AM, said:

hi,


asnwering ben, all unfinisched events are added up, u will see most tourneys nowadays NOT replacing subs for original partner.

Couple of reasons for this
1.Not fair to the sub helpings us out
2.often replaced players are kibitzing on the table when they want back in
3.often a connection of a replaced player will be same problem in future rounds
4.new software scans every unfinisched event


so we believe replaced players cannot reenter a tourney once they are replaced with someone else.

your second question, dont know if that woud count or not as finisch/unfinisched, doesnt apply to tourneys hosted from the majority of tds i know


spwdo

Thanks Marc,

I knew Uday suggested that once people were sub'ed out that they should not be allowed back in. But I have observed people getting their seats again so I know that this happens at least occassionally. I too think not letting them back in is the best idea as a general rule.

But sometimes a sub is pressed into service for a "hand or two" with an agreement to fill in until a permenant one can be found. Or the sub has a bad connection himself and gets lost. So someone asked me if that counted as abandoning. I simply don't know, so I promised to ask the question here.

Ben

[Maaa]

As I have already posted in an other topic of this forum how thankfull i am about taking the work to bar disconnectors from tournaments ( it improved tournaments so much!), I must strongly disagree with the idea to ban SUBs.

Expecially in longer tournaments it is sometimes better not to run the survivor movement. It is just not fair to get kicked out from a tournament after you played 22 boards out of 24, just bcs you loose your connection for 5 seconds. Now in swiss movement you NEED subs, but:

1. you(the host) do not have allways the time to explain a sub how much more boards are to play
2. a person wants help YOU, but is not informed about the real amount of boards to be played - you cannot force her/him to stay for 20 boards but you must be gratefull about any amount of boards the persons HELPS you
3. orginal players often come back - subs do not have nothing against leaving, as they only offered to help as long as needed - now you cannot reseat org. players, bcs the sub gets a ban ?
4. You as a player register to a tournament with your partner - lets say 20 boards - now you must play ( some TDs DO NOT ask if you wish to play with a sub or/and sub too early, not asking if player maybe only went out to reboot while he was dummy) with a stranger... and that stanger isnt also necessary happy with you ! Your partner is kibitzer.... and so on ...


Please take off subs from this list and let us be thankfull to everyone person, which offers you help, also if that are only 1 or two boards ! And very often that are only 15 min, 20 ... someone can help. Before an other tourney starts... before dinner...

[uday]

Hmm.

So you think that the ban process should only apply to the original players, and not to the subs?

Do we agree?

[Maaa]

Yes I do.

When I agree to help out, I need not to be necessarily happy with "my partner", but well, I am only a sub here.. the orginal player is back, wants to play, TD agrees, all are happy, but I get a ban ? Äää NO pls

I do not say, all TDrs should allow orginal players back. I think this is specific to the tournament, its rules. For sure Subs should be asked if they agree, not just bereplaced. But I really believe a person which offers help should not be penalized for this. Even if that are only 2 boards - often org player returns and even if not maybe in 10 min more subs avaiable and you helped out to prevent a sitout by that 10 min you spent.

Greets and a huge THANK YOU - to all persons who offer their help, without whom we never would be able to run such nice tournaments ! ♥♥♥ Our "SUBs"!

[inquiry]

uday, on Apr 28 2004, 01:40 PM, said:

Hmm.

So you think that the ban process should only apply to the original players, and not to the subs?

Do we agree?

I think no one should start a tournment unless they plan to finish it. But I agree with Maaa that subs might be a special case. I am willling to go along with whatever a majority of TD would vote, but if I was to vote I would also give subs much more leaway.

Ben

[Cascade]

I use subs sometimes in a way that would get them on your or up your defectors list.

In fact I have even subbed myself in temporarily and then out later to make the tournament run more smoothly.

So I would vote for subs to be exempt or at least treated by a different set of rules.

[Maaa]

Yes! Terrific idea - different rules.

It would be great to check out the reason why a SUBplayer leaves.
If subbed out -> ignore! Intentional disconnect -> act!



Marta

[spwdo]

hi,

We in our tourneys replace players unwillingly to play with a sub, had a star today(btw no name in his profile) , constant nagging against his subpartner, so i offred him a choice, either continui in a decent way or be replaced himself.

I coud never replace a sub, we use tds as temporary subs if needed in special occasions for short time.We never sub outside the table, so we are well aware when a player is rebooting or returning .
In swiss/unclocked u can wait in survivor they go out and are not counted for disconnect.

I understand the demands for a private club to favour the return of thier members but i do not see any advantage for open tourneys.


Overall i think the stricter we are for unfinisching( lower the % that is allowed),
the lesser subs we are going to need, in all fairness i think 60% finisching what u started is not enough(shoud be at least 3 out of 4), this means still 4 out of 10 events u entered u didnt finisch and the the cuts in survivor are not included there.


further i think that sending the # of baords to play togheter with a invitation to subs woud be helpfull.

So my vote is yes/no .If a sub is subbed out from td it coud be ok(only in case of allowing original player back, all other reasons to be subed out are not good ones) , so maybe give subs diffrent % , allowing them some more room to manouver in

spwdo

[spwdo]

uday, on Apr 26 2004, 02:01 PM, said:

I'm now settling in on this set of paramters:

People who abandon more than 40% of tourneys over the past 6 days and have entered at least 6 tourneys will be banned from tourneys for 1 week.

This week's batch was 160 users.

I am about to automate this and run it daily.

hi,


something not correct/inperfect (cant find corect word,trying to say good effort but there is stil a whole in the defence) .

It means that someone playing and not ending five out of five tourneys in six days will be not barred.

Dont know how/if u can change that too maybe look at every 10 tourneys someone entered and not finisching XX% he gets a bann, 6 tourneys in six days maens actually playing and brakiing rules every day before a barr is taking place


spwdo

[Gerardo]

spwdo, on Apr 28 2004, 09:54 PM, said:

We in our tourneys replace players unwillingly to play with a sub, had a star today(btw no name in his profile) , constant nagging against his subpartner, so i offred him a choice, either continui in a decent way or be replaced himself.

I prefer to have A- on time rather than playing with a sub, particularly if my partner is a regular (and even if is not).

I just want to play with my partner when/if is back.

Some TDs just get a sub compulsorily, in that case I'd certainly want my partner back (which is not fair for the sub). Would my partner get a bar point then? And the sub?

[spwdo]

Gerardo, on Apr 29 2004, 08:34 PM, said:

spwdo, on Apr 28 2004, 09:54 PM, said:

We in our tourneys replace players unwillingly to play with a sub, had a star today(btw no name in his profile) , constant nagging against his subpartner, so i offred him a choice, either continui in a decent way or be replaced himself.

I prefer to have A- on time rather than playing with a sub, particularly if my partner is a regular (and even if is not).

I just want to play with my partner when/if is back.

Some TDs just get a sub compulsorily, in that case I'd certainly want my partner back (which is not fair for the sub). Would my partner get a bar point then? And the sub?

hi gerardo,


off course that is your choice, if u say when td arrives , i prefer the A-, we no problem to adjust the baords for time/slowplay.we give u then a couple of baords A-, if after that time player still isnt back i think its time to sub either missing player or both players to not to many baords passed where opps cant play , afterall opps enter the tourney to play , and not for receiving a load of A+




marc

[Gerardo]

Maybe, but should still be player's choice. Getting A- after A- is not pretty either.

Opps would get just a round of A+, then different opps (usually).

But, once sub request is issued, former partner shouldn't be able to come back.
That's why is important the right to wait.

Make the request of a sub mandatory, receive no complains afterwards.

[Maaa]

I am one of those who ask players and try first to give "time".... usually till the end of a round, later I am trying to chat with the left player more often, begging/forcing him to accept a sub.

In my point of view a small percetange wants a replacement for partner immediately, lots wish to wait a few min. The majority accept a sub at some point - like you Gerardo, but there are a few which do not and leave ...
Now at this point (and in the current "subsituation", what means as much as often we have 4-5 tourneys at the same time on BBO) we often just not have enough subs to replace 2 missed players. Additionally to this , orginal players (those who loosed connections, those who just left i see are replaced most often immedietaly - the partner usually knows what happened) return very often after 10-15 min.
It helps very often to propose a temporaly sub - till partner is back. Players are happy and also lots of players from lobby offer such help, even point out, they will be only able to stay for x of boards and will need to be subbed out if org players not back till that time.
So I think this is a much better solution then 10 sitouts or to run every tourney in the survivor movement.

Of course i do not mean - seat a sub and kick her/him out just like that when no longer needed.
Host/TD should have take the time to: announce, a temporary sub is needed ( if that is known before asking) or at least speak with the sub, if she/he dont mind to leave as the orginal player is back
I reseated org players 100´s of times till today, and only one time i heard " I would prefer to finish", the majority was happy, they could offer help and can (often finally!! ufff) leave. Not to mention those subs who call me personally and ask to leave, bcs org players are kibitzing and they wish to leave.

Marta

[hallway]

Gosh I hadn't thought about that - I could be banned for life ! I let the TD's for our Teaching Tourneys sub me in while they find a Real Sub.

In and out in one hand.

Different rules for Subs please

We NEED Subs - we must be KIND to Subs.

[spwdo]

hi,


Hope nobody misunderstands me with my yes/no.We very appreciative of and for subs but we believe that beeing more stricter so making sure players percentages of finisching events woud be more higher would eliminated the subs issues.

When u only enter a tourney with staying finisching players and only a sub woud be needed as exception not as rule we woudnt be having this discussion.

If we have to say yes to change rules i can only hope we DO NOT ALLOW barred players as a sub in tourneys(not sure if this is already the case).

We are again suggesting higher those % of finisching events players need to reach to be able to keep playing tourneys to solve this problem.

If a disconnected player gets subbed on exception and gets back in, i see no harm, but if this happens to often and we "help" them finisch every tourney we are not working properly

WE hosted one time a tourney with 68 tables and we needed only 3 subs during 12 baords, isnt this how tourneys are suppose to run?

We simply dont like this arteficial aide for terrible connection and we like to see that disconnects for "emergency" alias bad scores woud be barred more often and faster.

Isnt 80% a fair goal, so this still allowes 2 out of 10 non-finischers.

I know i for one that i only not finisched one tourney out of all tourneys i played, and only twice i ended up with a sub as partner.


And if the majority off ppl on bbo wasnt like that hosting tourneys woud become impossible


BBO TD FRIENDS

[patrobo]

Hi,
I have joined forum to speak particularly about banning players with poor connections. I hope that this is the correct place to talk.

I am unfortunate enough to have had 2 partners (both keen and honest players) suspended from tournaments for 1 week. I appreciate that slow/bad conns are a stress for many, but is there no fairer solution to allow these players to be able to compete in tournaments? In both cases, their conns vary each time they login and they cannot predict whether it will be a "good" or "bad" connection.

Not all are fortunate enough to have access to/ability to pay for a good connection and I feel there is discrimination if people are banned because of connection issues.

Will we eventually have a site that is exclusive to the more fortunate?

BBO is a tremendous site and I would hope that it will be primarily for the playing of bridge globably. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to play and meet players in various parts of the world - ty BBO.

I await the replies that advise mainly of the difficulty of bad conns!!!! lol I am more interested to hear thoughts on a positive solution for these people))

Sorry I have no immediate thoughts myself on a solution.

Pat

[Gweny]

Our fishy policy is simple.

We sub agressively in rounds 1 and 2. If original player return then we ask sub if they mind yielding to original partner. If they say fine no problem we replace... IF AND ONLY IF we time to do all of this but if it happen 2nd time then sub stays in.

Our subs do this ( I think,) for maybe it is they who experience problem next time.

I understand wanting to finish with original partner but at same time waiting - even when opps agree to a- is very very time consuming for we need keep checking back to see if it is ok now. and in 8 min round what is reasonable wait? if we wait 3 min and person return and the opps experience problem and we need wait suddenly we lose entire board and who is to blame?

sigh.

in perfect world we pass glue and no people ever boot.

[Gweny]

patrobo, on May 1 2004, 07:23 AM, said:

Not all are fortunate enough to have access to/ability to pay for a good connection and I feel there is discrimination if people are banned because of connection issues.

Dear Pat,

Here is my thoughts.

Playing in tournaments is not right it is priveldge. People who direct for you is volunteers and at some point when we see same people over and over all time booting it gets little bit exhausting. Is it discrimination to other players to knowingly allow people who consistently boot into tournament? For it is how many people who suffer from 1 person with bad connection?

Here is what happen...
We need sub for this person if they turn red
We need keep checking to make sure they is connect
We need maybe extend time of round for they do long lags/lapses
Poor opps often do not get to play last board in round and often ave or ave+ do not really cover this for it is annoying to come to play and spend entire round waiting for good connection to occure
People often mistake bad lags as cheating (i know i know but we tds do hear this)

Perhaps uday can write some filter who allow people with bad connections to play in special bad connection tournaments.

I also think if you bad connection this maybe keep you out of tournaments but it do not prevent you from playing in main, in public clubs, or in team matches.

it is not prejudice it is practicality.

[spwdo]

patrobo, on May 1 2004, 04:23 PM, said:

Hi,
I have joined forum to speak particularly about banning players with poor connections.  I hope that this is the correct place to talk. 

I await the replies that advise mainly of the difficulty of bad conns!!!!  lol  I am more interested to hear thoughts on a positive solution for these people))

Sorry I have no immediate thoughts myself on a solution.

Pat

hi,

u were/are wondering for tourneys for the bad connected, i guess "unclocked" events are for all, its kinda very easy it seems.

1. U read tourneyinfo/format/rules
2.U register for tourneys when you
. HAVE read rules
. AGREE with rules
. ARE ABLE to follow rules
.WILLING to folow rules

So when u see 8 min/ baord dont sign up plaese if your connection is lets say very poor and u cannot follow this pace.

There is always a possiblity to ask uday to get td facilitys and do something for the poor connected if u feel they are not enough provided for( why not).

We td adore tourneys where we coud focuss on bridgeissues instaed of subbing&dealing with slowplay in clocked events.


BBO TD FRIENDS