[mycroft]

johnu, on 2026-July-09, 20:08, said:

Well, if the substitute is hopeless, there is no reason to continue with the substitute and they could call immediately for the original partner to return and bounce the substitute.

Well, yes, of course they could.

But OP's point is (very clearly, if you read the links in the post you quoted) that that's not what is happening. To him, there are players who join tournaments, explicitly so they can disappear after a hand or two and come back for the last one to hoover up the monsterpoints (heavily implied - that they couldn't earn for themselves by actually playing). And somehow they're convincing their partner to collude in this process. For what is never mentioned :-).

For me, I can think of tortures less scary than "sign up and pay to play with randoms while my 'friend' goes off and does fun things that are not bridge. If I do well, call them back for the last hand; if not, I can keep being tortured by the bad partner. Or, I have the option to bring in my 'friend', who is so bad (or hates bridge (with me) so much) that they can't (or doesn't want to) earn masterpoints by actually playing. Do this every day, possibly multiple times every day, for - reasons?" I don't know how much I'd have to be paid to do this; "actual pro level" is probably a good guess.

Never mind that if this actually was a thing, I would think that the names of the 'pro' and the 'client' would be caught pretty soon. I know I love the job of "finding a sub" so much, when I direct tournaments online, that "oh, I need to find a sub for [serial absconder] again." would trigger Really Fast; and the complaint to my boss/BBO/RA (even if it's just "hey, this is the fifth time I've had to sub for [SA] this month. Is there not something we can do?") would eventually set off something, whether it be an investigation, or just "yeah, we don't want your money. You cost us too much". For *both of them*, likely! I'm also sure I have more patience for BS than many, including many online tournament directors.

I say, forever I do, that "humans are pattern matching machines; bridge players doubly so." Do we all believe that directors are clueless and oblivious? Or that we don't talk to each other? Or such gluttons for punishment that they won't even *notice* this game happening? I mean, I know we "can't play bridge", but "aren't actually human" is a step up.

But seriously, the issue is almost certainly that OP likes getting masterpoints without paying for them by being on the permanent sub list. To which, more power to him - if that's what it takes to have sufficient subs available, and playing "worse than pickup" is worth it to him, cool. I get a full sub list, he gets to play for free and get his masterpoints. He gets really annoyed when the rules and the vagaries of the world conspire to deprive him of those masterpoints he believes he deserves; fine - you do you, again. But this conspiracy theory that just gets more and more extravagant every time it gets repeated - well, it would be funny if we weren't living in this world.

[jillybean]

johnu, on 2026-July-09, 20:12, said:

Well, masterpoints may be worthless to you, but the fact that people are paying to play in online ACBL games means that those people don't think masterpoints are worthless to them. And the hundreds of people being suspended for cheating by the ACBL didn't think masterpoints were worthless or they wouldn't have cheated to get them.

Cheating doesn’t prove masterpoints are valuable, it proves that some players have fragile egos and an unhealthy obsession with status symbols.
For the majority of players master points are a measure of bum time on seat.

[mycroft]

I quote this one a lot, and it hasn't got less true since he said it (but, you know, it has a different cadence from me than from the original): "The first masterpoint is hard. After that, they just come." (Paul Soloway)

[timouthy]

Since this is purely a BBO and not ACBL policy/decision, here's what I think is the right thing to do. After a certain amount of hands have been played by a sub, BBO should ask the sub if they want to play the remainder of the hands in exchange for an entry fee from the sub. If the sub agrees, the original player cannot return, annnnnnnnnd BBO, should reimburse the original player that never showed up. The amount of hands needed to be played by the sub should not be disclosed to the remaining player. for obvious reasons.

[johnu]

jillybean, on 2026-July-10, 11:24, said:

Cheating doesn’t prove masterpoints are valuable, it proves that some players have fragile egos and an unhealthy obsession with status symbols.
For the majority of players master points are a measure of bum time on seat.

If ACBL masterpoints weren't "valuable", people wouldn't seek out tournaments with fees to play in. They could easily play in the main bridge club or other free areas of BBO where there are no entry fees and no masterpoints.

Also, cheating in an ACBL tournament risks suspension and getting put on the disciplined lists under your real name, while cheating in a "free" practice game only risks expulsion from BBO on that user name, which is basically no punishment as it's trivial to create a new user account and continue playing (and cheating).