[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).

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2026-July-10, 10:22, said:

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.

According to the OP, he's claiming to be a pretty good player that consistently gets good results as a substitute, so there's no logic for the paying player to get rid of the OP because he's hopeless. Of course, if the OP was really hopeless, there wouldn't be any masterpoints at stake if he played most of the tournament.

[jillybean]

You are of course free to believe anything you like.