[sandiem]

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to let dummy play the hand when declarer is disconnected for a long time? I thought it was possible but a TD yesterday told me he could not do it.

[Vampyr]

sandiem, on 2020-August-31, 03:16, said:

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to let dummy play the hand when declarer is disconnected for a long time? I thought it was possible but a TD yesterday told me he could not do it.

The trouble with this is that if one partner is a significantly stronger player than the other, the weaker player could disconnect every time they are due to declare a hand.

[sandiem]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-31, 03:26, said:

The trouble with this is that if one partner is a significantly stronger player than the other, the weaker player could disconnect every time they are due to declare a hand.

I prefer to credit players with more honour and sense than to do that Obviously that would not be allowed.

I'm talking about a genuine internet problem which the player was trying hard to fix without success and thought it would enable the board to be finished so as not to inconvenience the rest of the players.

[pescetom]

Director could easily substitute the player in question with a robot, which is sufficient to ensure a timely continuation of play. He can also reseat the player once he is connected again. Obviously if the robot has started to play the hand as declarer then it is better to let it finish before reseating the player.

[Vampyr]

sandiem, on 2020-August-31, 03:46, said:

I prefer to credit players with more honour and sense than to do that Obviously that would not be allowed.

I'm talking about a genuine internet problem which the player was trying hard to fix without success

How can you tell the difference?

Crediting players with honour and sense is, I believe, a little naive in these days of self-kibitzing and collusive online cheating; so much easier than in real bridge.

[m00036]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-31, 08:15, said:

How can you tell the difference?

Crediting players with honour and sense is, I believe, a little naive in these days of self-kibitzing and collusive online cheating; so much easier than in real bridge.

That's not the case in a Virtual Club environment though where everyone knows everyone from face-to-face games. Lots of VC players are only on BBO to meet up with friends and have a social game so have no incentive to cheat to win (some wouldn't know how to kibitz at another table normally anyway). I agree that some partnerships do have one strong and one weak player so switching them around could give them an advantage in that case (subbing a robot in could also benefit that pair in a similar way), so I would leave it up to director discretion and ask the players at the table if they have any problems.

[pescetom]

m00036, on 2020-August-31, 10:48, said:

That's not the case in a Virtual Club environment though where everyone knows everyone from face-to-face games. Lots of VC players are only on BBO to meet up with friends and have a social game so have no incentive to cheat to win (some wouldn't know how to kibitz at another table normally anyway). I agree that some partnerships do have one strong and one weak player so switching them around could give them an advantage in that case (subbing a robot in could also benefit that pair in a similar way), so I would leave it up to director discretion and ask the players at the table if they have any problems.

If you are worried about the possibile advantage of temporarily subbing a GIB robot then your tournament is at such a low level that the result is not important, internet and ethical problems aside.

I concede that there is a more real issue when a player is partnered by robot for the entire tournament. I resolve this by not allowing people to sign up with a robot. I guess somebody could arrange for a courtesy partner to drop out early and be replaced by robot, but so far this has never happened. As you say, in a club game these subterfuges are fairly unlikely and also rather obvious.

[jnichols]

pescetom, on 2020-August-31, 13:01, said:

If you are worried about the possibile advantage of temporarily subbing a GIB robot then your tournament is at such a low level that the result is not important, internet and ethical problems aside.

How rude - there is no level so low that the results are not important to the players at that level

[pescetom]

jnichols, on 2020-August-31, 13:17, said:

How rude - there is no level so low that the results are not important to the players at that level

Not rude at all, just objective. A board or two with GIB is going to make only marginal difference and it will be negative for a pair likely to win in a good field. In any case it makes sense that players are temporarily substituted by GIB for technical reasons, arbitrary alternatives like 50%-50% or 40%-60% are not going to make competitors happy either. As a player I would just accept a competitor's substitution as rub of the green, however I assess my own level.